Forums >Running 101>Looking for advice from experienced runners.
Chief Unicorn Officer
Actually back in the '60s when Arthur Lydiard's training methods first became known in the US, a number of high profile runners who misinterpreted them claimed to regularly run 200 mpw. The best known for that was Gerry Lindgren who set several American records at 3 miles/5000m and 6 miles/10000m, one of the 6 mile times also being the world record. that you don't see runners still doing that is an indication that it wasn't as effective as one would like and also led to breakdowns and injuries. Some of Lindgren's claims also need to be taken with more than a bit of skepticism. I recall he once claimed he ran 20 miles in training that would have taken him to a world record for 10 miles along the way awhile continuing at the same pace. While it may be stupid, elite ultra runners, both men and women, can run more than 200 miles in a 48 hour race. It's not unusual for them to run 300 miles or more in 6-day races. A couple men have run over 600 miles.
Actually back in the '60s when Arthur Lydiard's training methods first became known in the US, a number of high profile runners who misinterpreted them claimed to regularly run 200 mpw. The best known for that was Gerry Lindgren who set several American records at 3 miles/5000m and 6 miles/10000m, one of the 6 mile times also being the world record. that you don't see runners still doing that is an indication that it wasn't as effective as one would like and also led to breakdowns and injuries. Some of Lindgren's claims also need to be taken with more than a bit of skepticism. I recall he once claimed he ran 20 miles in training that would have taken him to a world record for 10 miles along the way awhile continuing at the same pace.
While it may be stupid, elite ultra runners, both men and women, can run more than 200 miles in a 48 hour race. It's not unusual for them to run 300 miles or more in 6-day races. A couple men have run over 600 miles.
Elite ultra runners are not new to running.
Mile 5:49 - 5K 19:58 - 10K 43:06 - HM 1:36:54
I don’t see a time frame in the OP. At some point in his training he will no longer be new to running.
<3's heckin long zoomies
Might I ask why you selected 200 miles per week as a goal?
That's a ton of hours, even with a quick pace!
(I think it's somewhere around 34 hours at a 10 min/mi pace)
I remember reading in Hal Higdon's Marathon that there was no real difference between elite (Olympic level) athletes that ran 60-70 miles per week and those that ran 100 miles per week.
Started running - 2014
1st marathon - 2017
Still trying to figure out a good training plan that works for me.
Runs in the rain
It is crazy to set an initial goal of a 200 mile week, although doable it would need to be a long range accomplishment. My first thoughts: Figure that as a beginner you start at like a 20 mile week. A 10% increase in mileage each week is considered a safe amount, so the second week would be 22 miles, then 14.2 for the third and so on. Rough calculations in my head show It would take like half a year to get to a 200 mile week. Note that when you get to larger numbers the jump in weekly mileage would increase each time to get up to close to 20 miles! Like if you ran 180 miles one week the next week you would need to do an additional 18 miles more! Not sure if this could be done, would be very stressful on the body. Perhaps to increase by 2 miles each week is more realistic. That would take 90 weeks, about a year and 8 months. Do you really want to set your first goal at so long a range? Well, with further consideration I guess that you may not actually have to increase the weekly mileage all the way up that close to the 200 mark. I suppose as Paul said that 60 to 80 MPW if done for enough weeks would prepare you. But realistically your first goal should just to run consistently at least 3X a week. Then you may set your sights on a 5k race (or races) and after that when ready go for a half marathon. Now there is nothing wrong in setting up big goals, but some may prove unreachable. Keep your 200 miles in mind, but first set to achieve something more reasonably attainable.
Long distance runner, what you standin' there for?Get up, get out, get out of the door!
I know I’m the jerk that keeps being Debbie Downer here, but come on people. How often to we see newbies on a message board that want to run a marathon who have never run before, and we’re all over them for trying to do too much too soon?? And yet here is someone who isn’t a runner, seemingly never has been, and everyone’s like “yeah! Increase 10% a week and it’ll take you X weeks!” LOL.
How about, try a 5K. Then a 10K. Then maybe a half. Maybe be a runner for a few years before you set a goal so insane. And how about we keep our heads about us and not talk a newbie into getting injured and setting a goal that’s sure to disappoint if the OP has any expectations of doing this in the near future or even within 2-3 years. I predict the OP will give up after just a few months. It’s sort of an insult to those of us who have worked our whole lives to be better runners who are committed to the sport as a lifestyle.
Debbie life can write all different kind of stories. You need to believe in the first place. Maybe he doesn't have a job nor family. Maybe he wants to be the second person to almost cross all of Canada on one leg only. Maybe he is imprisoned in Nevada and the next town is about 200 miles away.
I believe in him. I know he can do it if he reaaaally wants it.
HM: 1:47 (9/20) I FM: 3:53:11 (9/23)
2024 Goals: run a FM & HM + stay healthy!
Rick
Perfectly reasonable goal, but please give a time frame and maybe some more info about yourself.
12-22 Last One Standing - dnf 37 miles
1-23 Sun Marathon - 3:53
3-4-23 Red Mountain 55k - 7:02
4-15-23 Zion 100 - 27:59
MJ5, I am the one who mentioned the 10% increase each week and I even stated it was not likely realistic. I think the 2 mile a week increase is more possible, perhaps with some recovery weeks of lesser mileage thrown in. However, most likely the newbie will find that he lacks the commitment to train that long, hard and consistent for probably two years. Failure is often a better teacher than success, you find out your limitations. If you read what I posted I agree with you that a 5K race is a more reasonable first goal.
I know I’m the jerk that keeps being Debbie Downer here, but come on people. How often to we see newbies on a message board that want to run a marathon who have never run before, and we’re all over them for trying to do too much too soon?? And yet here is someone who isn’t a runner, seemingly never has been, and everyone’s like “yeah! Increase 10% a week and it’ll take you X weeks!” LOL. How about, try a 5K. Then a 10K. Then maybe a half. Maybe be a runner for a few years before you set a goal so insane. And how about we keep our heads about us and not talk a newbie into getting injured and setting a goal that’s sure to disappoint if the OP has any expectations of doing this in the near future or even within 2-3 years. I predict the OP will give up after just a few months. It’s sort of an insult to those of us who have worked our whole lives to be better runners who are committed to the sport as a lifestyle.
No, not at all. I agree with you. Injury, burnout, setbacks, bad experiences are certainly concerns that need to be talked about, but it sounds like the goal has been set, so we should try to help. Calling the goal crazy, impossible, stupid, only makes the goal more desirable. Shoot, maybe I will go for it. New group, anyone?
Not sure about the being insulted part. I work hard, get out every day and have a friend that can kick my butt. He runs once every other week. Does that matter, no, I love running with him. On the other hand, I have friends that are far more disciplined than me and I can out do them. Hopefully they love running with me.
Being a new runner in this case might be a benefit because we can work a lot of walking into the routine.
Are we there, yet?
That's one of the points, another being that apparently it didn't work well enough for elite runners to still be doing it.
2024 Races:
03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles
05/11 - D3 50K 05/25 - What the Duck 12-Hour
06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.
Since I am new to running I dont not fully understand how running shorter distance equals be able to achieve the big run. Like marathon runs do not run 26 no. Everyday...
I'm not going to criticize the goal, nor am I going to try to offer a training recommendation to get there since I don't believe a recommendation is even a little bit appropriate without knowing more about current mileage, timeframe, or anything else. I tilt toward the "this is a bad idea" end of the spectrum since I'll agree injury is highly probable. But what I'm confused by, if I read this right, is the question of why marathon runners don't run 26 miles every day as a way to train for a marathon. If I do read that right and that's a serious question, I don't think all the advice in the world will help here. Pick any one of a zillion books- Jack Daniels, Hanson Brooks, Pfitz...you choose. I don't think any of them advocate the best way to get proficient in at 26.2 miles is to do it every day. Bodies need rest, variation, and lots more to perform well in a marathon. I'm willing to wager all of those authors know a crapload more about running than anyone here (including me) so if we're going against expert wisdom, all I can do is wish you luck and health.
I'm probably a jerk in a different way. If someone asks "how can I do this?" I'll give my best answer on how to do it, even if that does entail some personal jeopardy for the OP. Sure, if they ask, "is this safe?" or "is this smart?" I'll venture an answer, but otherwise I consider those questions out of scope. I answer the question that was asked.
Sort of like when someone asks, "what shoe do you where?" half the responses feel a need to explain why the shoe they wear doesn't matter. My answer is "I wear XXX?" End of answer. If someone wants to know "what shoe should I wear?" then they should ask that question.
I have started my workout routine and have started losing weight. I want to add running into the mix. I am not a natural runner. But my goal is to hit 200 mi. Within a week. I know most people do not push themselves this hard but mine is for a specific reason. Since I am new to running I dont not fully understand how running shorter distance equals be able to achieve the big run. Like marathon runs do not run 26 no. Everyday... So what would be the best way to work up to my goal? Thanks a bunch for any info.
I think experienced runners may be the wrong people to ask about this. You're asking for conventional wisdom when that's not what's needed here.
But to try and answer your question: long runs take longer to recover from, so generally speaking the easiest way to run a lot of miles in a week is to run lots of shorter runs. Most professional runners run twice a day, but even then you'd have to do two 14-mile runs per day to get to 200 in a week. If you get to that point, you'll no doubt learn some things about yourself along the way that most of us will never know.
Good luck. Big audacious goals are to be respected.
Runners run
Add me to the Debbie Downer group . . .
Do you work fulltime? Do you sleep at night? The reason I ask is if we assume 8 minute miles (a common training pace) for the 200 miles, it will take you 26.7 hours to run 200 miles. If we assume 10 minute miles (a very common pace for those who are not natural runners) for the 200 miles, it will take you 33.3 hours to run 200 miles. I don't know about you, but I find it difficult enough to carve 10 hours per week to run.
Even if you only plan on doing it once, you still are going to need to build up to it. So you are going to have multiple weeks when you need 15 to 30 hours per week to get your mileage in. Again if you work fulltime and sleep at night I do not see it happening.
He doesn't need to run anywhere near 30 hours/week to prepare for this.
I think it is a reasonable assumption that a mountainous 100 mile race (high elevation, lots of climbing, difficult terrain, 30-36 hour time limit, often hot) is at least as difficult as running 200 miles in 7 days on a flat, cool, course at sea level. In fact, it's probably a lot more difficult.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of runners complete tough 100 milers every year, and they run nowhere near 30 hours/week. Probably average around 12 hours a week and peak around 15 (maybe more if they run a 100K tune-up race).
I don't think the OP is around anymore, but if he is: Is there a minimum speed for this to be considered successful? Or do you just need to cover 200 miles on foot (some walking is OK)?