High mileage days are more important than high mileage weeks.

One thing you have to remember about this (maybe the only thing you need to remember) is that he ran a 2:58. The only info given about him is that he had a 17 minute PR, so he had previously run 3:15. No matter what age he was/is ... he was a jogger.

I too ran a 3:13 marathon once, in the Spring when I was 13. Changing the training around and making "big" gains when you are at 3:15 for the marathon are not evidence of anything, except that if you change the training of a 3:15 runner (in any way shape or form) you will probably have an improvement.

Back when I was 13 we didn't take anyone seriously, unless they ran sub-3, even myself. After all Wesley Paul had run 2:46 at age 13 ... that was :30 per mile FASTER than 2:59. That was like someone running a 5:30 mile and someone who ran 6:00 piping up about their training. Nobody cared, you weren't good.

Why the marathon at 13? You weren't good enough to run real track events? Or is that the only thing you could beat people at when you were 13? I believe it because most 13 year olds don't want to run a slow marathon, they want to run real track events and not just who can jog the fastest. What did you do as you aged, the ultra? Loser, how dare you insult anyone. You suck!

This question also seems to fall in line with whether "hard + higher volume" workouts done less frequently is more/less effective than "moderate volume" workouts done more frequently.

To be consistent and not risk injury (approaching 40 yrs old) ... I can either do: 1) 2-3 short weekly quality sessions OR 2) 1 higher volume/quality session. The other days are a VERY easy hour run.

My hunch is that there is no right answer and it is a personal preference.

Thoughts?

I wasn't insulting anyone, because this was just someone posting an article example that supposedly supported the idea that high-mileage days were more important than weeks.

I won't insult you either, even though you surely deserve it. I won the State Championships in the Mile and 2-Mile on the track for 13-and-under in 7th grade, in Ann Arbor. I also ran a 17-minute 5k and 36-minute 10k that year.

It doesn't matter what happened to me after that as you were just insulting the 13-year-old me.

Merry Christmas!!

Respectively disagree as well.

I study bone, and I recall hearing the bone biology group at IUPUI did a study where they found that multiple bouts of stress with 4-6 hrs between was more 'anabolic' to bone that a single bout of the same total duration. The body is meant to move frequently and will thrive with consistency and frequent movement. My personal experience finds this to hold true.

ludwig wittgenstein wrote:

Star wrote:

Is doing 10 mile days followed by 4 mile days better than 7 miles every day?

No. In my opinion and experience, consistency is more important than a spectacular training day mixed in with lackluster training days.

I agree with this for a base period. I do not agree with this when racing.

Thanks for putting that up. I'm not really sure what to make of it, I totally agree with Jaguar1's post. But I love reading about off beat stuff and these guys qualify.

Have you found this to hold true regardless of age or years of running? I'm thinking of people like George Sheehan who switched from running mostly five mile runs each day with a race to doing ten mile runs every other day when he hit 60 and got a new marathon PR or Jeff Galloway, yes HIM, whose marathon PR came after reducing mileage overall but really lengthening his long run. Both of these guys were older and had many years of running behind them.

Interesting about him. I got into running from his first book on running before the run/walk stuff.

I'm finding better results from consistent weekly higher mileage versus my old "book" approach of lower miles during the week and longer long run.

For me, more total mileage works, and I haven't been injured yet. I do most runs moderately so maybe that's the difference.

Using the JK approach, how will a block of training look for a masters runners using the linked information from above?

dont run more than 12, 15 mile weeks, RUNNING CAUSES KNEE DAMAGE

HRE wrote:

Have you found this to hold true regardless of age or years of running? I'm thinking of people like George Sheehan who switched from running mostly five mile runs each day with a race to doing ten mile runs every other day when he hit 60 and got a new marathon PR or Jeff Galloway, yes HIM, whose marathon PR came after reducing mileage overall but really lengthening his long run. Both of these guys were older and had many years of running behind them.

It's hard to argue with what worked for someone-- stick with what works! I just know what they've found through research and is most "anabolic" for musculoskeletal health (basically "doubles" and frequent stress, with specifically 4+ hrs rest between). This would certainly be critical for aging athletes who are trying to ~maintain musculoskeletal health and fitness.

I've heard legendary ultrarunner, Yiannis Kouros, would train with short bouts several times a day-- not necessary the "extended long runs" you often hear about with ultrarunners (besides his actual long races!). My "longest run" I did leading up to the 100K World Champs was the marathon I did a month out. I rarely ever run over 20-22 miles for a training run.... stick with twice/day running for 12-13 sessions/week-- get in 40-50 miles on the weekends in doubles. Keeps the legs fresh and turning over!

Thanks.