Is multiweek intervals of the same mileage with jumps set at even intervals throughout the training period more effective than a linear progression? I've heard that the subsequent fitness gain from making mileage jumps is higher that way (from Daniels' I think) but I don't know. What are your thoughts? Also, if using the interval plan how many weeks in between jumps? And how big are they? My understanding right now is adding 5 miles after every three weeks, but it might depend on what the mileage is compared to your previous experience. How should it be if you are running more than you ever have? Discus. Take into account injury prevention and fitness gains.
You can do it many ways, but I would keep the mileage 6-8 weeks with down weeks or so, before increasing again. If you change the training too soon, your body doesnÂ´t have enough time to fully adapt and stabilize to the new mileage. Increasing volume too much --> going to catabolic state and maybe getting injured, the body has itÂ´s ways to tell you that this is too much. Just enough to shake the homeostasis, stabilize it by staying there long enough before changing training again. I recommend to google "orthostatic test" and consider it to monitor the state of your autonomic nervous system. This done every morning helps you to decide is your body ready for high volume/intense day on that day. An example of a mesocycle, two to three weeks working phase (shaking homeostasis), 1 recovery week (supercompensation). The mileage in the working phase from about 30% to no more than 50% higher than in the recovery phase. Play it safe and wise. If the recovery phase is too short, and you arenÂ´t recovered, you miss reaching a full supercompensation and can end up overreaching/overtraining etc. The second mesocycle at the same stress level is important to fully stabilize to the new volume. ThatÂ´s why the 6-8 weeks before changing the training again. Some literature says that 4-6 weeks is enough but I think that you shouldnÂ´t rush it, especially when training at level where you havenÂ´t never been.
The short answer is YES, going up after multiweeks at the same level is better.
I think UNO has it right but I will have to read it again.
Where linear progression is useful is for undertrained HS/college athletes who don't have the patients to keep up the proper schedule as soon as they leave their coach's sight. Once the coach has control again, the coach uses a linear progression to rush them into some kind of shape knowing that they will rest Thanksgiving week and over Christmas break.
I coach in Division 1 and typically over the summer I do a 6 week phase where they ascend to peak mileage fairly rapidly. Really similar to Lydiard I guess. After the 6th week, they go down a week to allow compensation and then go into a phase of 2 "up weeks" and 1 "down" week throughout the season. Most down weeks fall on important race weeks. 21 days out from championship race we strip doubles. 14 days out we lower mileage by %15. Week of championship we lower by another %15.
I know of some other coaches (one is at a very major school in a major conference) that prefer to build like this:
W4 60 mpw
W7 65 mpw
They have had a lot of success doing it that way. I have had success doing it my way as well. There are all sorts of ways to build mileage. You just have to find what will click with your athletes. Also, the most important factor is that you keep a good balance of maintaining your mileage and recovery from harder sessions. If you can't do that, then no optimal mileage building method will matter come race day.