90+ Miles a Week

Rule number 1 to mileage--- everyone lies!!!

You should go off of time not miles.

I doubt your mileage is accurate because you put in more miles than anyone in the history of my college, your training pace is faster than anyone in my college and yet you would fail to even make the travelling team.

The actual training you have outlined is not too bad,

Just make sure you don't loose skills you learn. You cant do all mileage and no speed, you have to do speed at least once every 2 weeks so you don't go backwards.

once a week generally won't hurt you.

1 long run great!!! every week 2hours-2.5 hours depending on where you are coming from

1 long tempo run GReat! every week 6:00min- 5:30 60-90 min

1 tempo-- 8k-10k pace every 7-14 days

hill sprints 2-3x a week (or strides)

there are all sorts of things people will say you have to do but these are the bare necessities.

The data for this research is difficult to get. But I can do it. Obviously, it is a subject few people want to discuss. I will need a significant number of surveys to make it meaningful. Even then, what I'm really after in the research is finding out what works.

Before I can figure out what works, I need to gather research on the work experiences people have had (both those who have mental illness and their coworkers) and what they've done about it. What are some organizations that are mentally healthy and why?

I want to ask startup founders about their mental health. What are the changes they've experienced from working 90+ hrs a week with a lot of stress? How do they manage it? In the book The Effective Engineer, the author states how it isn't necessary for startup employees to work that much. Often engineers are doing unnecessary work and it leads to burnout. I want to see if startups that work a healthy number of hours grow just as fast within x years. What is the damage, cost, and risks in the long and short run? For cofounders who have split, what was the state of their mental health at the time?

I'm going to create a blog so that I can build an audience. It might be the fastest way to gather surveys and get leaders to try different techniques in their organization.

I will apply for grants.

Another D2 All-American here, I was going to say a lot of what zoob said, but there it is.

You should be doing strides all summer long. 6 weeks out from the season I like to make is 6-8x200m on the track. Mile pace. Long recoveries.

Do 1 long run.

Do doubles.

Do threshold work starting 6 weeks out from your season. Cruise miles are fine to keep the intensity down. 4-6xmile with 1:00 rests @ tempo pace. Tempo pace in this case is the Daniels' defintion: the pace you can hold for an hour.

A marathon pace tempo (5:30-6:00 pace according to zoob) is fine to add in here and there. I wouldn't do it every week.

So 6 weeks out from the start of the season, my training looks like this:

Sunday: 18

Monday: 10

Tuesday: 12 (6x200m, 8+4)

Wednesday: 15 (10+5)

Thursday: 13 (8+5)

Friday: 12 (4-6 x mile @ tempo pace)

Saturday: 10

Easy pace is not important so long as you aren't doing it too hard and not too easy. (6:30 is too hard, 8:00 is too easy).

I chose division two wrote:

Oh okay! I went to Ferris St. Graduated around the same time as you. Our training was a lot less volume

How would you know when I graduated? Lots of Edinboro All Americans out there

If I made a nonprofit to do the research, do you think VCs would be interested in donating? The research could benefit them by knowing how best to help startups.

Wetmore don't believe in doing no stinking doubles

Here's a genius idea..... TALK TO YOUR COACH.

wsaz wrote:

Wetmore don't believe in doing no stinking doubles

You're misinformed.

“I’m not as wimpy as I used to be. I remember Mark suggesting doing doubles and I was like, “What?” And now I do doubles every day. We’ve both changed so much,” Goucher told Runners World.

As a former D 3 runner, all american in XC and twice in steeplechase, you seem to be doing good stuff but DEFINITELY add doubles! Human growth hormone production peaks about 40 minutes into a run, so why not run 2x40 minutes rather than one 80 minute.

Also, speaking with your coach might yield good results too! Don't just rely on letsrun...

Gambler wrote:

This is one of the most coherent, on-topic, informative threads I have ever read on letsrun. Well done, everyone.

Also, yes 15 is better than 10 and 5 generally, but you can probably do 11 and 5 if you split it into a double. Nitpicking sure, but like other posters mention - you drastically reduce the odds of injury.

Also, take the easy days easier and put tempos in there once a week (for you, something like 5 at 5:20-10 pace).

The odds of injury are not the big reason that doubles are better. The training stimulus IS. We all know that 5 miles is much more effective than 2 miles, and more than the 2+ times more effective that we think it should be. We all know that 10 miles is more effective than 5, right? And it is slightly better than the 2X we expect it to be.

And by better I am talking about better at BUILDING mitochondria. But the toll it takes on our muscles is greater, and somewhere around 65-75 minutes is the sweet spot for the ratio of biogenesis and wear/damage. 15-20 miles is better, but it is not so much better that the damage is outweighed by the greater biogenesis. The marginal increase in damage is greater than the marginal increase in biogenesis. That is why we do truly LONG RUNS (different lengths for different people) once per week or so.

John Kellogg has a brilliant article (15 years old) on this website about this very concept and I think it is called "The Stepwise Nature of Distance Training."

Carry the opposite of this concept to fruition and you would be doing 4-5 thirty mile runs per week. This obviously doesn't work. So we know that fifty 2-mile runs don't work and we know that four 30-mile runs don't work, so why does 10-12 miles work best?

That is a good question. The length of a training run should be NEAR that point that stimulates the growth/density of mitochondria maximally before the point that the body is torn down too much. So look at it as gaining 1.1 units of (we'll call it Mito Growth) MG for each .9 unit of (muscle damage) MD, for each minute run at a specific pace. Which (in my opinion) happens between about 55-75 minutes. (these are just numbers I pulled out of the air for illustration). At lower durations (say 2-6 miles) it is even greater advantage, say like 1.2 vs. .8 ... but the overall damage is not so great that you aren't still making ADDITIONAL marginal gains by running beyond say 40 minutes and putting in 65-75 minutes.

It is beyond this duration (as JK said 35 minutes, 70 minutes and 1:45) that additional gains are still made, but I would peg them at like .9 units of MitoGrowth vs. like 1.1 units of MuscDamage.

You see the relationship inverts. And every minute you spend running beyond about 75 is certainly helping you but the marginal COST (in muscle damage) is greater than in the first 35min and the second 35min.

You see you have reached the point of diminishing returns. therefore keep the runs to between 2-3 miles at the low end and 10-12 miles at the high end.

I know that many greats run 15 miles 2-3 times per week frequently and that Lydiard preached a 90-minute run twice a week and both of them are right to do this. This kind of volume is for the best among us and those who have run 90-120 miles a week for a while. Not for aspiring D3 runners who have run 14:58.

So that is why 5 in the AM and 10 in the PM is the ticket.

Now that I have typed a novel ... i would suggest you check out JK article. I read it 15 years ago and it made sense of my long held beliefs that I could not articulate very well myself.

Do some tempo work , bounding, plyo and hill repeats. This will allow the initial weeks of team practice go much easier.

outsiderunner,

i have to underline that more than likely doubles will make almost every runner better, and runners capable of 90 miles a week should not be afraid of introducing doubles. in this thread a lot of good, experienced runners have explained the reasons for it.

nevertheless, though i have build up my doubles very carefully and over a long period, i missed the warning signals that i am one of these all-in-singles-guys.

insidious lack of recovery and a fixation on putting in the training resulted in a lack of recovery, heavy achilles tendonitis and a chronic feeling of physical and mental fatigue.

end of the story: step back to long singles with a decent amount of quality runs.

I ran in the 25's on 60 mpw.

I'd say that 70-80 mpw makes more sense. if I were running that many miles I'd expect a minute or more faster at the least.

Run smarter.

mr.sj wrote:

outsiderunner,

i have to underline that more than likely doubles will make almost every runner better, and runners capable of 90 miles a week should not be afraid of introducing doubles. in this thread a lot of good, experienced runners have explained the reasons for it.

nevertheless, though i have build up my doubles very carefully and over a long period, i missed the warning signals that i am one of these all-in-singles-guys.

insidious lack of recovery and a fixation on putting in the training resulted in a lack of recovery, heavy achilles tendonitis and a chronic feeling of physical and mental fatigue.

end of the story: step back to long singles with a decent amount of quality runs.

Sounds like "a fixation on putting in the training" was the cause behind your over training and not the doubles. In your case doubles reinforced bad habits that you already had. If done right, doubles will have the opposite effect that you're suggesting.

In other words, all else equal if your run 2 x 60 minutes at the exact same pace as 1 x 120 minutes, I don't see how 2 x 60 could possibly put you at higher injury and over training risk. You must have changed something else as well, possibly your pace? Or maybe rather than doing 1 x 90, you switched to 2 x 60.

[quote]What will they try next? wrote:

...John Kellogg has a brilliant article (15 years old) on this website about this very concept and I think it is called "The Stepwise Nature of Distance Training." ...

Anyone able to post a link to this?

First off, good job on beginning to build a good base. Now you just have to tweak how you do it.

Injury prevention is extremely important, so heed the advice of others on doubles vs. all singles. I'd also be careful with your long run. Some have said that you should make your long run 20% of your weekly mileage. That's fine, but they left out one caveat: That is only the case if you don't exceed 90 mpw. After 90, 20% is greater than 18, and then you end up with long runs longer than 30k, which is no good for a non-marathoner, and even some marathoners don't cross that barrier for a single run on a weekly basis. As Haile said, "The problems always start after 30k."

Some will disagree with this next part, but it helped me.

I would strongly advise "staying in touch with your speed" (as Leo Manzano has said) once per week. Yes, he's a miler, not an XC guy, but I found this to work for me. Because this month of the year (June) would qualify as very early season, I'd suggest some mile repeats. Later on, maybe 4x400m after a mile-repeat set. In addition, once per week, 4x60m, regardless of what month it is. 60m exactly isn't important; could be 50m, 55m, 58m, etc.; just something 50m-60m. These 60m, 400m, and 1600m/mile repeats are not all out, either; roughly, 60m at 300m pace, 400m at 1600m pace, 1600m at 2-mile pace.

don't forget some speed wrote:

I'd suggest some mile repeats.

I was saying "Yes, he gets it" until this part. Mile repeats in June make no sense at all. I'm assuming you mean the VO2max variety and not cruise miles.

Staying in touch with your speed is as simple as strides or a few 200s or 40-60s hill repeats. Twice a week. Low volume. Lots of recovery.

Don't do mile repeats in June.

thanks for the post. probably i ignored the need of rest and this undermines every training conception.