These 3 runners run 50 mpw but very differently. Which is best trained for the marathon?

My favorite is E but F is good too.

How about starting at much lower mileage (say 30) then working up to 90 over the course of a training cycle?

Mileage means little without knowing intensity and frequency.

Think about doing a two week cycle instead of a weekly cycle. Then you could use the variability of your schedule to your advantage and schedule some lower mileage (but perhaps faster paced) workouts for when you travel, and the higher mileage workouts and long run for when you're home. Or is the issue that you can't run at all when you travel?

Runner A is most likely not to get injured.

Runner C maybe best trained, but I doubt there would be a significant difference.

One strategy you could try is to make the long runs the day before and after travel week.

So Sunday long run, M-F travel so a little less mileage, Saturday long run.

Then the week you have more time. Run more each day.

Example:

12 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 12 = 49

7 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 7 = 49

Obviously you would have more variance day to day and scale your long run up, but you get the idea of how weekly mileage doesn't have to shift 40 miles between weeks..

Generally I would give better odds to the first two runners in both sets. I think the down weeks are too drastic. But I guess it really depends on the workouts. I'm normally around 60-70 and I lose a lot of fitness if I start running 50 mile weeks consecutively. If you really killed yourself in the high weeks you might be gaining big benefit, but I think generally speaking you will be losing fitness at the end of a 25 mile week and probably even a 40.

Schedules B and E look somewhat reasonable. But if you are a 50 mile per week runner, in the sense that running 60 miles every week would put you at risk of injury or overtraining, then schedule C (alternating 75 - 25) is likely to get you injured or burnt out. Similarly for schedule F if you are a 60 mile per week runner, although this one is not quite as bad since you are "only" hitting a max of 130% of your baseline, instead of 150% like in schedule C.

Now, if you could actually handle running 60 miles per week but only want to average 50 for some reason, then more extreme alternations become more reasonable and something like 65 - 35 could make sense for you. That said, you'd still be better off with something like 65 - 50, or even 60 - 65 - 50, if you were willing to run more than 50 miles per week.

Two Week Cycles wrote:

Think about doing a two week cycle instead of a weekly cycle. Then you could use the variability of your schedule to your advantage and schedule some lower mileage (but perhaps faster paced) workouts for when you travel, and the higher mileage workouts and long run for when you're home. Or is the issue that you can't run at all when you travel?

Thanks for these thoughts. When I travel it's normally 4 to 6 flights into a given week. For example imagine a redeye from NY to Europe, then meetings all day, then dinner. Can't really do anything productive on that day except a short treadmill run at night, or late 11pm jog outside.

Next morning you can typically run more, but that means cutting on sleep that's already short, and that gets you injured. So during a week like that when moving around a lot, I can run either very early or very late, but typically that's 3-6 miles on either hotel treadmill or in a new city (which means jogging is great for sight seeing, but workouts not so much). And you find yourself in suit and tie within 30 min after that workout, hence can't be too intense.

So usually these weeks are okay-ish, I run a bit every day but not productively, I then do back to back hard on Sat-Sun (e.g. 10 miles trail run Sat and 16 miles with most of it at MP on the next) when training for a marathon. But once back, I do tend to have more time and can double etc.

So in my case, 25 in the 5 weekdays when traveling sounds possible, so I can see myself running at most 45 mpw when on the road (sometimes less) and perhaps up to 75 miles when back. Was just wondering if variable = bad.

The most I've even run in a month in 230 miles last August when I had more time. Over the next few months, I want to build mileage (easy slow) to a new base of 60+ (have been doing 40-50 at most consistently) and try to take my 3:18 marathon towards 3. I recently have run 1:24 half, so I need more volume now.

Jack Daniels' marathon training schedules, including the elite schedule are a repeat sequence of 100% max weekly mileage, 90%, 80% and sometimes down to 70% which would put the weeks for a typical schedule above at about

70, 63, 56 mpw and on and on. There's quite a bit of variation in intensity in those weeks.

Rob Krar, who was the Ultrarunner of the Year in 2013, is a pharmacist who does 10-hour graveyard shifts one week on and one week off at work, so he cycles his training as you suggest:

"By necessity, Krar’s mileage during workweeks stays relatively low, around 75. Krar runs more during his off weeks, as much as 110 miles"

http://www.runnersworld.com/trail-runner-profiles/the-contradiction-of-rob-krar

ddnbb wrote:

Rob Krar, who was the Ultrarunner of the Year in 2013, is a pharmacist who does 10-hour graveyard shifts one week on and one week off at work, so he cycles his training as you suggest:

"By necessity, Krar’s mileage during workweeks stays relatively low, around 75. Krar runs more during his off weeks, as much as 110 miles"

http://www.runnersworld.com/trail-runner-profiles/the-contradiction-of-rob-krar

Thanks. I had read that article actually before. It's a great read, and I encourage everyone to take a look.

I think my original question is also about how differently trained we are when consistent vs intermittent. For example development of mitochondria, aerobic conditioning.

My hunch is that the unsustainable HIGH (say your mpw + 15/20) followed by an easy LOW (say mpw minus 15/20) trains you better for longer events because you can reach higher highs than you would if you did it all the time.

But the real question is: what's a week for the body? I've heard we adapt in 10-14 days to training hence why.

Twisting the issue further imagine running 7 days a week 7-8 miles, while another runner does 0-20-0-0-20-0-10. I'm sure the latter is better conditioned for the marathon, but here, the time frame might be too short.

Just thinking out loud. For my schedule it would make sense but I'm just wondering if it could work out better. Call it wishful thinking! We don't live in an ideal world so one must take into account external factors.

There have been runners that have had success in the past with rotating weeks of different types of training as well as mileage total. There could be a positive aspect to this as the runner will not get in a rut and each week will differ and stress different systems in the body.

This may or may not work at the elite level but a dedicated serious runner could benefit from this, as well as possibly keeping injuries at bay.

For example, a three week cycle could include week one of distance focus and therefore this week would be the high mileage week. Week two could be a combination where some tempo running and maybe some hill repeats would be included and the mileage reduced by 10-20%. Then week three would be speed based and again the mileage reduced another 10-20% because of the increased intensity.

I have worked a schedule for years where I worked 7 days on, then 7 days off. So my training has jumped up and down from one week to the next. What I have learned is that you can't jump up too much in mileage from one week to the next. By the 4th or 5th day of the higher mileage week, there is inevitably some "naggle" or extreme soreness in you legs that might turn into injury if you ignore it. I think the body can handle a 50/70 jump. But doubling mileage like 40/80 will just not work well. The cardiovascular system can handle it, but the durability of your legs is the weak link. You need more mileage in the low week in order to maintain that "trail hardened" durability in the muscle-skeletal system that only consistent high mileage gives you.

So the short answer is that whatever training gives you the highest amount of injury free total miles is the best training for the marathon (or any race). I think the 50/70 option is the best goal to shoot for. I'm also assuming that this mileage includes the right amount of quality faster paced running.

Very interesting. Thank you. Oddly enough your 70/50 option means high = 1.4 x low.

Rob Krar example is 110/75 = 1.46 so very close to that indeed.

So variations like:

40-60

50-70

60-80

70-90

Should work quite well, and the shorter mileage week can be more intense (as others have mentioned) with short tempos and or intervals etc. while the longer week can be marathon pace focused + long easy runs.

Of course, there is no fast rule that it has to be a 2 week cycle. Thanks to the poster who voiced the idea of the 3 week cycle, very good post!

Run as hard as you can for as long as you can.

Then do it the next day,

Instead of getting bogged down too much by weekly mileage (7 days as a microcycle is an arbitrary length that we use for convenience), think of getting your important workouts/long runs in on days that are good for your schedule, and then running as much as you can while still getting the sleep you need on the other days. As someone earlier suggested, try to prioritize getting in a good workout or long run the day before you leave on a trip.

Also, you might be able to get some easy doubles in while traveling. Sometimes while traveling I'll get an hour or so done in the morning, and then get a 20-30 minute shakeout jog in before dinner.

andicamp wrote:

Instead of getting bogged down too much by weekly mileage (7 days as a microcycle is an arbitrary length that we use for convenience), think of getting your important workouts/long runs in on days that are good for your schedule, and then running as much as you can while still getting the sleep you need on the other days. As someone earlier suggested, try to prioritize getting in a good workout or long run the day before you leave on a trip.

Also, you might be able to get some easy doubles in while traveling. Sometimes while traveling I'll get an hour or so done in the morning, and then get a 20-30 minute shakeout jog in before dinner.

Great post, thanks. The slight overload just before forced recovery/easy makes sense. Oddly enough you are right sometimes fitting a double on a travel day may be easier (more sleep/convenience) than a single longer run. And that makes treadmills more tolerable!!!