12

100 miles (Read 1082 times)

DoppleBock


    My bread and butter work outs at higher mileage M 8 Easy T- 16-18 miles with 5x5 minutes @ Vo2 max W - 20-22 mile Long Tempo - 1st 1/2 easy - 2nd half @ MP + last 2 Fast Finish TH- 8 easy F - 12-14 miles easy SA - 12-16 miles with a good LAT workout SU - 20+ miles long and slow I would run these in the morning and then M-F try and do 4-5 at lunch recovery pace. Tuesday - Wednesday sometime was great other times Wednesday turned into a 2 mile fast finish run. Now life is different. I run 85-110 MPW - Less speed - more enjoyment and I let life get in the way all the time.

    Long dead ... But my stench lingers !

     

     


    Feeling the growl again

      My bread and butter work outs at higher mileage M 8 Easy T- 16-18 miles with 5x5 minutes @ Vo2 max W - 20-22 mile Long Tempo - 1st 1/2 easy - 2nd half @ MP + last 2 Fast Finish TH- 8 easy F - 12-14 miles easy SA - 12-16 miles with a good LAT workout SU - 20+ miles long and slow I would run these in the morning and then M-F try and do 4-5 at lunch recovery pace. Tuesday - Wednesday sometime was great other times Wednesday turned into a 2 mile fast finish run. Now life is different. I run 85-110 MPW - Less speed - more enjoyment and I let life get in the way all the time.
      There is certainly more than one way to get there. I found I got better results through frequency (ie doubles) over doing 4 runs of 14+ miles in the same week. And I could not have handled your T-W regimen. Then again my marathons often out-performed my workouts, doing extended runs at true MP in training were always a bad idea for me -- killed me. This is where the personal differences come in, you need to experiment and find what works for you. I second the experience about rejection the first time then acceptance the second. Very similar here. Geez, I'm doing something wrong. Letting life get in the way and still running 85+ mpw!! For me I must be happy with 50 now. I've never been able to successfully convert to significant morning workouts which is a big part of my problem as my evenings are too valuable now.

      "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

       

      I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

       

      wjosephbaker


      RunningEsq.

        "I'm partial to Michigan Tech" I am an NMU Wildcat. Big grin If you ask me, Huskies suck. Wink
          Nobody here can tell you that if you run 100 miles a week you will be sub-15, or conversely, that you will almost certainly get injured and burn out. We don't know you. No one knows what it will do to you. I'll preface this by saying that I've run as much as 131 miles in a weekk and have averaged 100-110 mpw for extended periods. This started when I was about 23 and I did it often until I was 28. If I could go back to college, the biggest change I would make would be to run more miles. We only ran 40-50 mpw in college and I was not good. I did not get good and go on to post a 10K time 30 seconds faster than my former university's current record until I consistently ran over 70 mpw. That was like a platform from which I could go on to bigger and better things. In my individual case, the increase was rather quick. After college, I quickly went right up from 40 mpw to 60 mpw. Within a year after that I was doing 70-80 mpw and dabbling up to 100 mpw. Another year and I was often hitting 100 mpw. So 2 years from 40 mpw to frequently 100 mpw -- and going from 2200 miles in a year to 4000 miles in a year. It is IMPORTANT to note that when I did this, I had already been running consistently for a decade -- since age 12. My joints, muscles, tendons, and ligaments had already had time to strengthen and my form was good. In high school, you don't have time in the bank to develop this toughness. So you are more LIKELY to get injured, but not in any way guaranteed. Have you had any injuries? DO you consider yourself injury-prone? People talk about how fast you can get running 100 mpw. That is true. What they typically ignore is that if you currently run 50 mpw, you have a LOT to gain from consistently running 60 mpw, then 70 mpw, then 80 mpw, etc etc. There are gains at all levels. You WILL NOT be as fast running 100 mpw six months from now as you would be running 100 mpw a year from now after spending time at intermediate levels on the way there. In other words, you are increasing the risk of bad things happening (injury, burnout) while giving up some of the gains you could have gotten with less risk. I would recommend working your way up there and see how it goes. Give you body the time to acclimate. If you do 50 mpw now, work up to 70-80 mpw by next summer. Then up to 100 mpw the summer after that. I did my 131 mile week cold-turkey when I was in the 70-80 mpw range. It hurt. A lot. I was always sore, tired, and slow. I likely got little out of those last 30 miles for the work I put in. As for not running 100 mpw in college, if you are running for a GOOD program you will likely be running close to that during cross country and track if you run the 5K/10K. Not-so-good programs get people who showed less talent in high school, and are therefore not going to train them as hard. Good programs also have depth and can afford to injure people on high mileage going for the fastest 7 guys possible, while smaller schools need everyone healthy every week. If you really want to see how good you can be, you need to escalate your mileage in a SMART manner and see what you can handle. You will see best results at the highest mileage that allows you to remain uninjured and recover between workouts. This will differ by individual -- I had a teammate who ran 14:53 and went to Nationals on less than 50 mpw. He could have been a lot better, but he got injured easy and could never do the miles to improve that time. I wish someone had told me all this when I was younger. I could have run 3-4 minutes faster over 10K in college and been comeptitive there, rather than running my best times at age 28 when the team aspect was long gone. 100 is just an arbitrary number. Run smart, not arbitrarily.
          I'd agree with most of that generally..but there's an AWFUL big difference between building up to 100+ mpw as a college runner with a solid foundation or as a post-collegiate runner and a 16 or 17 year old junior in high school. I can't imagine there is any way 99.9% of high school runners, no matter how good, could benefit from 100 mile weeks any more than they could from 70 mpw. I ran for a pretty good D-II program for just one year in college, so I am no expert....but we peaked at 80 mpw and most other college runners who I talked to or intereacted with in any way...very few did 100 per week. At your best D-I programs, sure..I'm sure it does happen, but I don't think it's that common...at least not for the team as a group. Now...if a coach tells their best runners to do a little more, maybe, I don't know. That's not really the issue though. I don't think a HS runner should be running any more than 70 mpw at most...and even then it needs to be built up gradually. In college, there is definitely exceptions, but I'd still say only the very best should be going above 100...at least consistently. Now...that being said, I am speaking from the perspective of what is best for the runner for their entire running lifetime.....if a HS runner can survive a 100+ mpw without injuries, of course he'll benefit from it..but it could be extremely damaging down the line.
          PRs: 1 mile-4:46 (high school track), 2 mile-10:10 (high school track), 5K-16:26 (college track), 8K-28:26 (college XC), 10K-33:59 (road race), HM-1:17:13


          Feeling the growl again

            I'd agree with most of that generally..but there's an AWFUL big difference between building up to 100+ mpw as a college runner with a solid foundation or as a post-collegiate runner and a 16 or 17 year old junior in high school. I can't imagine there is any way 99.9% of high school runners, no matter how good, could benefit from 100 mile weeks any more than they could from 70 mpw. I ran for a pretty good D-II program for just one year in college, so I am no expert....but we peaked at 80 mpw and most other college runners who I talked to or intereacted with in any way...very few did 100 per week. At your best D-I programs, sure..I'm sure it does happen, but I don't think it's that common...at least not for the team as a group. Now...if a coach tells their best runners to do a little more, maybe, I don't know. That's not really the issue though. I don't think a HS runner should be running any more than 70 mpw at most...and even then it needs to be built up gradually. In college, there is definitely exceptions, but I'd still say only the very best should be going above 100...at least consistently. Now...that being said, I am speaking from the perspective of what is best for the runner for their entire running lifetime.....if a HS runner can survive a 100+ mpw without injuries, of course he'll benefit from it..but it could be extremely damaging down the line.
            I was advocating at least 2 years to go from 50 mpw to 100 mpw. Saying 70 mpw is also an arbirary number. The point is a runner needs to test themselves if they want to see how good they can be. As I indicated, this runner can get lots of gains at 60, 70, and 80 mpw for periods on the way to 100 mpw and they SHOULD do that first. Possibly they will find that 70 mpw is about all they can handle....and will stop trying to get to 100 mpw. Saying you're going to try to work there over 2 years, and committing to getting there in 2 years regardless of what you learn on the way up, are two very different things. There are two routes you can take as a runner: 1) Lean toward risk-adverse. Do not test your limits because you may get injured. You are more likely to stay healthy, but virtually guaranteed never to find out how good you can be. 2) Test your limits (in a smart way). See what you can handle. Sure, you are likely to crash now and again but if you are really serious about seeing how fast you can be it is mandatory to be in this group. I have been aggressively in Group 2 for a long time (until the last couple years, for unrelated reasons). Have I crashed a couple times? Sure. Fairly hard (I traded an awesome 10K PR for the marathon performance I always dreamed of). But I also acheived some performances I could never have dreamed of and participated in some running events I never would have imagined. The choice is personal, but as my sig line indicates, if you are really serious about performance you can't make excuses or you'll always be left wondering what could have been. Also, what college runners do in-season and what they run for base mileage in the summer are very different. You have to be very good to run 100mpw in-season. But doing so in the off-season will make you tough as nails when you are only going 60-70 mpw in-season.

            "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

             

            I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

             

            Mishka-old log


              Nationwide? Certain geography? Wants scholarship or just to run? So many things to consider. 16:00 in HS is not going to get you a D-I scholarship or national recruiting.
              I think there are some (smaller) D1 schools out there that will offer some money to a 16:00 runner...especially a runner from Maine. Some coaches will see him as a diamond in the rough with a lot potential. I'm not talking about a full ride, but there is money out there for a 16:00 kid.


              Right on Hereford...

                you don't need to run that much in high school, i don't care what anybody else says. you're body probably can't handle that. you will most likely get hurt, unless you've been running high mileage, say at 60-70 mpw for at least a year and half already. even then, i don't think it would be smart. what i think would be wiser, is to keep the mileage closer to 60-70, but increase the pace. you are only running a 5k in high school. trust me on this, going that high wouldn't be beneficial.
                What do the Kenyans do at that age?
                DoppleBock


                  It always amazes me - 10 similar speed kids could bust their ass and one has a break through and leap frogs into a good / great D-1 runner. Work hard - Work smart !

                  Long dead ... But my stench lingers !

                   

                   

                  buck919


                    Finally - Running a lot of miles goes not make you a good / great runner. But I believe that it can help you acheive results closer to your genetic potential. for me, I genetically will always be a mediocre runner, so running lots of miles makes me the best mediocre runner I can be Big grin
                    The high mileage/genetic potential idea is one that I've been very interested in. Dopple Bock, obviously you feel that high mileage helped get you near your max. potential, but do you feel that it got you there quicker than say 50, 60 or 70 mile weeks? Could you have got there on lower mileage? Put another way, let's say ones genetic potential is a 35:00 10K. Are high volume (e.g. 90, 100, 100+) necessary to hit that 35:00 mark? Could you eventually get there on lower mileage or would lower mileage limit you to a slower time (36, 37 minutes)?
                    Teresadfp


                    One day at a time

                      I think there are some (smaller) D1 schools out there that will offer some money to a 16:00 runner...especially a runner from Maine. Some coaches will see him as a diamond in the rough with a lot potential. I'm not talking about a full ride, but there is money out there for a 16:00 kid.
                      Well, I'll tell him to just keep working like he is now! Of course, a D1 school might not be the best place for him, anyway. Eek, too many factors to consider.


                      Feeling the growl again

                        The high mileage/genetic potential idea is one that I've been very interested in. Dopple Bock, obviously you feel that high mileage helped get you near your max. potential, but do you feel that it got you there quicker than say 50, 60 or 70 mile weeks? Could you have got there on lower mileage? Put another way, let's say ones genetic potential is a 35:00 10K. Are high volume (e.g. 90, 100, 100+) necessary to hit that 35:00 mark? Could you eventually get there on lower mileage or would lower mileage limit you to a slower time (36, 27 miluntes)?
                        Everyone has some theoreticaly limit that they can achieve -- based on their physiology and genetics, there is some level of performance that, if perfectly trained under perfect conditions, they could never surpass. Now, statistics tell us that the odds of anyone ever reaching that make it virtually impossible that any individual will ever actually reach that theoretical match. But we can approach it to varying degrees. We can take my experience as an example. I was nothing exceptional in HS. After 4 years of running, as a sophomore, I was a mid-19 5K kid. Nothing special, even in a small area where running was not popular outside schools. Could not make varsity unless kids got injured. Next summer I ran and biked a lot more. Suddenly I started the season at 17-high and ended 17-low. Huh.... Tried it again senior year and shaved off more to 17:01. The next two years in college I didn't get much better doing much the same thing I'd been doing. Then one winter I nordic skiied hard 1-2 hours per day 4-5 days per week. Suddenly my 10K went from mid-35 to mid-34. Huh... Did much the same training the next year, performed much the same. Got out of college, ramped my mileage to do marathons. Times kept coming down. I kept this up for 6 years, and every time I tried and adapted to greater volume/higher workload I got faster and faster. Eventually I got up to where I was often doing 100-110 mpw and occasionally 120 mpw with 3 solid workouts. Twice I reached that level, and twice I tried to reach a little further and crashed -- iron-deficiency anemia, over-training, etc. Basically, I saw more and more improvement right up to the point where my body said I could not handle any more. All that work got me to a 30:57 10K. For a guy who could not break 34 in college training seriously that's a dream. But there are a decent number of college runners out there who can better that on half the mileage. That is talent -- the ability to run faster on less work. Does that mean they don't have to run 100 mpw? Well, I've known a lot of good runners and I will say that I have NEVER met a runner whose body could handle 100 mpw who was not a lot faster there than they would have been on significantly less volume. The requisite question is what training load (volume + intensity) your body can handle under the conditions (sleep, stress) you put it under and still recover/adapt. If you exceed this, you hinder performance. If you don't reach this, you give up improvements as unrealized. So each person is left with finding that balance between volume and intensity (# of workouds, workout makeup/speed, etc) that gives them the biggest bang for their buck. If your body is not challenged -- you're never tired, workouts aren't hard, etc etc -- you could be faster. I am running less than half the volume I used to. I am NEVER tired in the way I used to be. As a result, this weekend I am looking at running a marathon 10-15 min slower than I used to. edited to add: While the ability to handle high mileage is a "talent" in and of itself, lots of people without talent to run objectively fast can do it -- you don't have to be fast to benefit from mileage. I know a couple guys who followed my lead. One was much more talented than me -- but could not handle the volume without getting injured, ran 31:30ish off 70-75 mpw. The other, who started with similar college times to mine out of the same program, handled the mileage fine but never got as fast -- low-2:40 marathon and 16:30ish 5K. Which was a ton better than he had done on low/moderate mileage, he just didn't have the potential it turned out.

                        "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                         

                        I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

                         

                        DoppleBock


                          I would have never got close to 10k or marathon times @ 70 miles per week - but spaniel is right every one is different. 5k - I am not sure. I am very genetically limited, but ... I really enjoy running every morning and enjoy long runs. At lunch everyone else in the office goes out to eat - I run home or to the YMCA and get 4-5 recovery miles in. I then feel great the rest of the work day. Ramping up to high mileage: The slow progression year after year is the lower risk approach. Going from 50-70 to 100+ in a short period of time is a higher risk approach - Your body will either accept it or not. If it does not and you force it you may lose much more than you gain from injury.

                          Long dead ... But my stench lingers !

                           

                           

                          buck919


                            Thanks Dopple and Spaniel. I guess the advice seen elswhere on these boards is pretty accurate: run more, some fast, most slow! As someone currently in the 70 - 80 range who just got there, I'll take my time before ramping it up to 100.
                            12