Tom runs 3 days a week. He runs 15 miles. 45 weekly total.
Joe runs 6 days a week. He runs 7.5 miles. 45 weekly total.
They want to compete in everything from 5k to marathon.
Who has the better training method??
Tom runs 3 days a week. He runs 15 miles. 45 weekly total.
Joe runs 6 days a week. He runs 7.5 miles. 45 weekly total.
They want to compete in everything from 5k to marathon.
Who has the better training method??
joe is more consistent, while tom is likley to gain weight on his 4 weekly "off" days unless he cross trains like mad...
tom's 15 milers may give him a slight edge in a marathon, but he probably does them at a slower pace compared with joe, who would perhaps have trouble finishing a marathon unless he paced himself accordingly...
I give the edge to joe for 5k-half mar. but it is a coin toss for marathon, maybe tom because of his 15 milers...
Let me try changing the question:
Is Jorge better off at 85 miles a week with an average of 10-12 runs (with a run as long as 18 miles, but a few others as a short as 3 miles)?
OR
Is Jorge better off with 70 miles in 7 runs with a long run as long as 15 miles?
You left out two key things:
(1) Training intensity level.
(2) Event you are training for.
IMHO, if you ran 4x15 miles a week, and you were training for 10km-halfmarathon, and you can one of the 15 milers as a very intense tempo run, and one of the 15 milers as a fartlek with hard VO2max intervals within the run, you would have a DARN GOOD training week, even with 3 days off each week.
jason
Okay - assume that Jorge is training for the mile - 5K - 10K. Assume that most of the runs - regardless of what mileage are easy. Within a week 1-3 sessions are harder, being either tempo / AT, track, hill, intervals.
Which mileage set we would be better?
the 15 milers hard with the recovery days is the best of the two methods.
Wasn't it Slaney who said it's better to do a little a lot than a lot a little?
I've run the 85-miles/week w/ a weekly 18-miler, but I didn't go as short as 3 miles. The shortest runs were usually around 6-8 miles.
I've also run the 70-mile weeks with the weekly 15-miler.
To be honest, my race performances, especially for the 5-15K, were very similar.
In an odd sequence of events, my mile PR came when I was doing the 85-mile/week bit, and my marathon PR came from the 70-mile weeks. Go figure.
Those names aren't just psuedonyms for Webb and Ritz are they?
3 X 20 miles or 6 X 10 miles per week. That is the question.
Elite's do 100mpw
4 x 25 or 7 x 14 which makes you stronger?
Are we talking about Jorge Torres of CU? Cause I don't know any other runner named Jorge.
How about...
7 runs (1 per day with long run of 16), totaling 82 (ie. 12; 10; 13; 9; 15; 7; 16)
OR
12 runs (2 each week day w/ long run of 16), totaling 92 (8,5; 10,5; 6,5; 9,5; 7,5; 11; 16)
I would choose the 12 run per day plan. To me it would seem that you can put more aerobic base work into there while still running 2-3 hard workout per week.
Jorge ... Bob ... whoever ...
I wonder if I would be better off with 12 runs of say:
4,8 / 4,8 / 3,7 (w/wo) / 3,8 / 11 (w/wo) / 3,8 / 16
(total being 85)
OR 7 runs of say:
8 / 10 / 10 (w w/o) / 8 / 10 (w w/o) /10 / 14
(total being 70)
Assume that all the none work out runs are easy.
Goal races are mile to 10K.
Given what I have heard ... I am not sure there is a significant difference.
The Colorado team runs once a day. That is how you get strong.
One a day. Run 20 miles 4 times a week at a good pace.
What could be better? Mon 20, Tues recovery, Wed 20, Thurs recovery, Fri 20, Sat + Sun recovery.
80 miles. Not too shabby.
Colorado runs once a day because they are college students and twice a days would double shower time and all the other things required of just on practice. Wetmore said in a recent interview that if he was training athletes outside of college, he would probably run them in two-a-days.