60mpw on 3x20 miles with 4 days off. Thoughts.

15, 15, and a 30 mile weekend trail run could work for you also. I don’t see a problem with it as long as you think you can handle big stimuli like that with out getting injured. I disagree that it will help you recover better, a 20 miler followed by a day off is going to beat you up a whole lot more than two 10 milers back to back. I would agree that it is more specific to your racing if you’re solely training for ultras but if you ever decide to do a road marathon I wouldn’t train like that.

Consistency and daily stimulus is key imo for maximal gains, so this certainly wouldn't be optimal but if you think you can recover from 3 longs runs a week and you just want to do something that you'll enjoy even though it isnt the best way to train then go for it.

I don't want to talk about all the things wrong with this approach but here are some things to consider.

You act like 60 miles a week (essentially an hour of running a day) is time consuming. It's not. And if you think 8 miles a day is a grind, just wait till you have to run for nearly 2.5 hours on each run. That excludes dawdling. With dawdling, you're looking at nearly three. Add in warmup and cooldown stuff. Could be looking at four. Add in travel if you drive somewhere. Five. If you're on the slower end of things, that number creeps up even more. There's a reason why people do doubles or only one or two of these kinds of runs a week (added in, of course, with about 40-60 more miles per week).

Running 6-7 days a week also spreads the load out throughout the week whereas three 20 milers right in the middle, the first one will fatigue you, the second one will break you down, and the third one will get you injured. If it doesn't happen the first week, it'll happen eventually.

Sounds like a terrible idea. 8 miles a day should not have you feeling exhausted if you are not over exerting yourself.

Zante wrote:

You act like 60 miles a week (essentially an hour of running a day) is time consuming. It's not.

It may not be a lot if you have all day to do it. If your only option is to run at 9pm at night after the children have gone to bed, you don't have a treadmill, and it's cold and snowy/icy outside, it's a lot.

Commit to it for 6 weeks and let us know how it goes. You might find you're more fit than before if you're durable enough to handle it. If it's less stress in your personal life due to more time and more stress in your running due to bigger efforts that should lead to increased fitness in the longer races.

I have a counter for you -> ... wait for it ... -> 21 x 3 mile runs. (3 x 3 a day). It‘s so short that you don’t really have to fuss over what you wear to go out and run, and it’s over before you start to even really sweat.

OP, I agree with everything you have here with the exception of the ultras and trails races. Frankly, those are just lame.

But yes, taking four days fully off is going to be better for you than running every day.

It will likely take you several months to adapt, but once you get used to a weekly long run of 2.5-3 hours, you just need those two days recovery and you’re fun.

It's hard to imagine that you recovering from a 8 mile run is harder than from a 3 time 20 mile run.

Yes you might safe time on changing clothes and showering but you are probably also running the 20 miles at a slower pace so it will take you longer per mile.

Why are you running 60 mpw in the first place, if you just want to do some long stuff sometimes on the weekend.

Just run less and you will be fine.

BITD someone proposed, in all seriousness, a 100-mile week based on four days of running.

Not necessarily four 25-mile single runs: You could do doubles or even triples on Tuesday, Thursday, and both days of the weekend; or M-W-F and one weekend day, with the other entirely off. All those free days would have meant time available to spend with the kids, or going out to dinner and a movie with the spouse, or just putting in some extra (productive) time at work.

It was an intriguing notion that I would have liked eventually to explore, had I not sustained permanent injury via my run-every-day routine.

Runner Fred wrote:

It's hard to imagine that you recovering from a 8 mile run is harder than from a 3 time 20 mile run.

True, if all of your runs are 6-10 miles, your body is gonna to have a hard time recovering from a 20-miler.

If you are doing a 20-miler every 3-4 days, your body will get efficient at recovering from it.

Running junk miles runs counter to the idea of stress + recovery = adaptation.

run daily just slow down

some people have different circumstances wrote:

Zante wrote:

You act like 60 miles a week (essentially an hour of running a day) is time consuming. It's not.

It may not be a lot if you have all day to do it. If your only option is to run at 9pm at night after the children have gone to bed, you don't have a treadmill, and it's cold and snowy/icy outside, it's a lot.

Dude, then don't run, or run less. If your lifestyle isn't well-suited for just one hour of running a day (which could be your lunch break, sleeping 8 hours instead of 9, not watching Netflix before bed) then you better be working like 90 hours a week because it's not that hard. There's 24 hours in a day, surely if you have time to have running as a hobby, there's at least one of those hours to use for running.

I'm not belittling other circumstances but there are answers that don't involve running 60 mile weeks with poor recovery and little time on-hand.

Also I'd rather have my parent around for a bit each day than to disappear for three days in the woods.

In the very old days, before WWII, it was common for marathon runners to do something like this. The common belief was that running was hard for the heart and you shouldn't do all that much of it. Most of us would be happy with the sorts of times Old Kelly, Les Pawson, etc, managed on that sort of running.

There are more modern examples too. Jack Foster was doing something like 20, 15, and an interval session, maybe one more day with some sort of run, maybe not, when he was 50 and ran 2:20 off of that. Moses Mayfield had a few years after he turned 40 when he was running 3-4 times a week and was one of the better masters runners in the country, briefly. A Scotsman called Alaister Wood ran 2:13 and won London to Brighton, 53 (?) miles on what he called training every other day, though he did run a couple miles on intervening days. It could work for you.

On the other hand, there is a lot, an awful lot, to be said for consistency. In the '70s, when Runner's World was still half interested in running fast, they had an article advocating doing longer runs every other day. Yet the article cited a study done on female British marathoners that looked for the best predictor of good performances. It found that NUMBER OF RUNS done in the prep period was the best predictor. It was not total miles, that was the #2 predictor.

From that perspective, the guy who suggested that you do seven three mile runs a day might be on to something. And I would also agree that if recovery is hard for you at 60 miles a week you're probably running too hard. But have a go if the 3 x 20 thing if you want. There's only one way to tell what will happen.

Zante wrote:

Dude, then don't run, or run less. If your lifestyle isn't well-suited for just one hour of running a day (which could be your lunch break, sleeping 8 hours instead of 9, not watching Netflix before bed) then you better be working like 90 hours a week because it's not that hard. There's 24 hours in a day, surely if you have time to have running as a hobby, there's at least one of those hours to use for running.

I'm not belittling other circumstances but there are answers that don't involve running 60 mile weeks with poor recovery and little time on-hand.

Also I'd rather have my parent around for a bit each day than to disappear for three days in the woods.

Let me give you some idea of what a typical day might look like. Wake up at 6 ish at the latest, often earlier, dependent on when my youngest child (toddler) wakes up. Help out with the morning routine for the children. Deliver one of the children to the kindergarten around 8 - 8:30 on my way to work. Cycle to work. Work. Run during lunch. Cycle home from work. Pick up my child from kindergarten on the way, around 4pm. Help out with the children and household tasks. Help put the toddler to sleep. It is now around 9pm. Sometimes I need to do further household tasks, e.g. grocery shopping, and you will notice that I also have not had time to work in 7.5 hours at work, so typically need to work in the evening a bit as well, as well as spend some evenings with my wife.

So I do run at work at lunch if I can, but obviously the gym is shut these days, and it is not always possible in ordinary circumstances either. This leaves late evening, in which case I often am running between 11pm and midnight. I typically get max 6 hours sleep, often more like 4 or even 3, and that is often broken. I essentially never watch television.

But it is important to me to keep in shape, and training properly for running gives me motivation and something to work towards, so I choose to make some time for it. You will notice that I put my children first.

I have done 70 mile weeks in singles, six days of running, like this. I would not myself do 3 x 20 miles. But the point is that 60 miles is most definitely not easy for some people.

This is just like cycling, thought it's not cycling.

Most semi-serious cyclists can and do ride 100 miles plus with regularly frequency, and that's quite a few hours.

Every time I read someone freaking out about the time demand a program with 20+ mile runs in it, I recall the cyclists I know and see at 8 a.m. and still see out there at 1 p.m. Or, of the time demands I had when I was training, for cycling, like that. I see zero issue why a 3x20 weekly schedule wouldn't work for someone with an eye on ultras. Injury risk? What do you think an ultra is in the first place? What's it matter? Just run, baby, as long as it's exactly how I run?

I say go for it.

OP here. A few things:

-I do have kids. Last summer, I pushed them both in a double stroller for almost all of my non-workout days, yes I sometimes race pushing my son, we even won a small town 5k each of the last two summers. They are over 100lbs combined and this, I think, led to some problems with my achillies. I have since reduced it to only pushing one at a time. I have a special needs 8yo, can't bike along side. I am currently building a motor assist stroller so I can hopefully resume taking both of them on my runs.

-3x20 would save time compared to 8ish/day and if my stroller contraption works, I will be bringing them both with me when the weather improves. They're good and patient for around 5 miles in crappy winter weather, but not 10-20. The weather is getting pretty nice now though.

-It is not so much the 8 miles that are hard to recover from, it is the never-ending demands of being a parent....combined with the running. I want to run everyday, but some days it is just such a poop-show making it work. 3 days per week seems nice compared to 6-7.

-Why do I want to run 60mpw? Just stubborn pride, nostalgia, and taking pride in my health. I like showing my kids health, being able to enjoy the outdoors without an engine running, just not feeling like a domesticated slug.

Truthfully, I'm a kick-ass dad, I can say that in full confidence. So, I am not worried about my kids not getting quality parenting, I am wondering about the physiology of this. I am running 50 this week, I'm really thinking of taking a crack at it next week.

Thanks for all the conversation....keep it coming.