posted Jun-28-2002 12:57 PM               

All right guys, back to your discussion...

IP: Logged

posted Jun-28-2002 01:23 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Jun-28-2002 01:37 PM              

By Hal Hingdon

But are 100-mile weeks necessary? And whether or not they are necessary for the marathon elite, what about runners of, let's say, more pedestrian ability? What about runners who might have the talent, but not the time? Must they train at a Herculean level to achieve success? If not, what level of high mileage is necessary to maximize potential, not merely in marathons but in medium length distance races? Could the person who trains 30 miles a week achieve marked improvement in his 15-K or half-marathon times by increasing weekly mileage by 50 per cent to 45 miles? What is the truth about high mileage?

THE TRUTH ABOUT HIGH MILEAGE

Consider first the 100-mile week. Is it myth or reality? Even some of the elite runners disagree as to the necessity of regular training at this level. Don Kardong of Spokane, Washington achieved success (2:11:16 and fourth place in the 1976 Olympic marathon) with less mileage than most. "My feeling is that people pick 100 because it's a nice, round number," he says, "but an even rounder number is 88.

Tom Fleming, a 2:12:05 marathoner with several second-place finishes at Boston, however, claims: "You have to run 100 miles a week to be up there. That's all there is to it. To be a really top runner, you have to be all the way up to 140 miles a week. That's only 20 miles a day." Only? Well, that depends on your point of view.

Craig Virgin disagrees. A three-time Olympian and two-time world cross-country champion, Virgin was a low-mileage runner--relatively speaking. While setting P.R.s of 27:29.2 for 10,000 meters and 2:10:26 for the marathon (second at Boston in 1981), Virgin averaged 90-95 miles a week. He hadn't run his first 100-mile week until his junior year in college, and, except when training for his infrequent marathons, rarely strung 100-mile weeks together. "I don't think they give any awards for workouts," says Virgin. "To the best of my knowledge, there are no gold medals for `Most Mileage.' If it's the end of the week, and I have 98 miles in, I don't go for a third workout that day to get 100. That won't make the difference between winning and losing. It's what you do with that 100 miles a week, and I think people forget about that."

WHAT ABOUT THE AVERAGE RUNNER?

Regardless of the opinions of runners, the facts speak loudly: if you want to survive in the jungle of American road racing at the topmost level, you probably must train at, or near, the 100-mile level. To do that, you most likely must work out twice daily. But what about the average runner? Can we all benefit from increasing mileage?

Consider some of the physiological effects from high-mileage training. There does seem to be a special training effect achieved at high mileage that scientists have only begun to understand. There exists the possibility that the 100-mile week may be necessary to achieve maximum performance in the marathon with mileage near that (70-80 miles weekly) for achievement at middle distance races (10-K to 30-K).

The late physiologist Al Claremont, who had been a top competitor and high-mileage trainer in his native Canada, once told me: "Where you may get some advantage in high mileage--if you can stand it--is in the substrate, the metabolic level that relates to glycogen storage. With volume over 100 miles, you're depleting yourself on a chronic basis and forcing yourself to replenish your glycogen stores day after day."

Glycogen is a starch like substance produced in the liver and muscles and changed into a simple sugar as the body needs it. Carbohydrates in our diet offer our main source for glycogen, one reason why spaghetti has become such a popular pre-race meal among marathoner's. Glycogen is the preferred fuel for running, but it can become depleted within 60-90 minutes under normal training conditions. Thereafter, the predominant substrate is fat, which is metabolized less efficiently, forcing a reduction in pace.

Claremont stated: "If you can push the depletion level of the body in races from 60-90 minutes to two hours by training, you can maintain a higher intensity, which translates to a better running speed. That is where volume mileage has the advantage over high intensity training."

BURNING FAT

He suggested that the well-conditioned athlete teaches his body to burn a higher percentage of fat with glycogen, thus increasing the available duration of glycogen reserves well beyond the characteristic 60-90 minute depletion time: "Top marathoner's are probably so efficient in metabolizing both fats and glycogen throughout the length of their race, because of the vast volume of their training, that they probably rarely deplete their stores. As a result, they don't hit the wall."

William J. Fink of Ball State University suspects Claremont's assumption may be correct, but also suggests that volume training may result in a neuromuscular training effect, a more efficient recruitment of all available muscle fibers, which allows the work load to be parceled out over the distance more effectively: "When a runner doubles his training mileage, we often see no change in his maximum oxygen uptake (max VO2), his ability to deliver oxygen to the muscles. So we are forced to look to other areas to determine why volume training results in better performance."

One such area may be psychological, or so suggests Jack H. Wilmore, Ph.D. of the University of Texas at El Paso. "When you do 100 miles a week, your legs are chronically fatigued," he comments. "Then when finally you do taper before an important race, it makes you feel all the stronger. Since believing in your ability is a necessity in achieving success, training at a level of more than 100 miles may constitute positive reinforcement in a runner's belief in his own ability to compete well. The same would hold true for a 30-mile-a-week runner, who through a gradual buildup achieved an ability to train comfortably at 60.

Dr. Wilmore also suggests that there still may be other adaptive mechanisms that physiologists not only do not understand, but may not even have identified. "In one area it could relate to the punishment your legs take and how you adapt to it," he says, relating more to his own experiences as a marathoner rather than anything identified in a laboratory. "When I'm out of shape and I race at long distances, everything hurts. It feels like my connective tissues are coming apart. But when I'm ready for a marathon, and have put in the miles, everything moves smoothly. If you're talking about the reasons high mileage results in fast times, I'm not sure we know what we're looking for yet. Most scientists probably have not zeroed in on the real causes."

RED-LINING

Top marathoner's talk about "red-lining," a term borrowed from auto racers. The red line is the mark on the tachometer of a high performance automobile where if you consistently rev your engine higher, it will disintegrate. Whoom! $125,000 worth of junk. Red-lining in running is pushing your body in training right to the point of self-destruction, achieving maximum efficiency, training the necessary miles to run P.R.s, but not so much that injury, or staleness, occurs. The red line for one of Dr. Kenneth H. Cooper's fitness joggers, interested only in good health, is 15 weekly miles. Dr. Cooper, the author of the best-selling Aerobics and subsequent books on the subject, suggests that if you run further than 15 miles a week, you're doing it for reasons other than fitness.

Someone whose goals extend beyond fitness to performance might red-line--after a gradual build-up--at 30 miles. Or 45. Or 60. Most often, these limits are physiological in nature. There's a Catch-22 in red-lining. You have to train hard to be able to train hard. But if you train too hard, you no longer will be able to train hard. Confused? It's simply that too many miles too soon result in injuries: strained tendons and ligaments, stress fractures, chronically dead legs, what commercial advertisers might label "tired blood."

ADAPTING TO STRESS

Lee Fidler, a running coach from Atlanta, Georgia, suggests that to reach even the 60-mile level, you have to move through a gradual progression in increments of 10 per cent a week. Then every third or fourth week, unload: drop back close to the starting point to recover. Fidler says: "If you build constantly week after week, you get stronger, but you also find your break point. It's best to approach your break point without reaching it. You advance in steps. Go up two or three steps, drop back one or two steps, then hop back to where you were and start stepping again."

Joe Catalano of East Walpole, Massachusetts has coached everyone from beginning joggers to his former wife, Patti Lyons Catalano, who had a marathon best of 2:27:51. He believes in building through repetition: "The more you repeat something the stronger you get," says Catalano. "The first time out can be exhausting. But as you practice more and more, your body adapts, you handle the stress, and you become stronger.

Catalano believes that people vary in their ability to increase mileage. He recommends a gradual climb, adding five extra miles a week for a top runner, but a lesser progression for others. "The endurance base is the single most important factor in getting fit," he advises. "People worry about speed, but if you concentrate first on mileage and improving your strength, you can move to the speed phase later."

While high mileage may produce fast times, simply adding mileage may not guarantee success either for the world-class athlete or the born-again jogger, whose goal is not a gold medal but merely qualifying for Boston. Quality must be mixed with quantity to produce maximum results. Don Kardong says: "People are too conscious of high mileage and not conscious enough about quality. It's a natural outcome of keeping a running diary. You become very concerned with how many miles you ran this week, but not with how fast you ran them. In the next few years we may see a shift back to quality rather than quantity."

HUNTING FOR SPEED

Thom Hunt, a distance runner from San Diego, California whose best marathon time is 2:12:, often varies his mileage from week to week and from season to season. "I do not do mega-mileage," he says, "yet I'm not afraid of it either." Hunt usually runs between 85 and 105, slightly higher immediately before marathons. But he patterns his workouts. "I might run 105 one week, 115 week after that, then go down and run a 90," says Hunt. "Rest is an important part of a training program. There are times of the year when you just go to the beach."

But what about the average runner, the 99-plus per cent of today's running population, who will never see the underside of 3:10 much less 2:10, those who because of a genetic mismatch do not have the basic equipment to match the Thom Hunts of the world either in a race or in workouts? Must this person be condemned to a life of marathoning mediocrity? Maybe not, because one of the great talents of today's top runners is not merely to race hard, but to be able to train hard so as to be able to race hard. That's Catch 22-A. Nevertheless, the runner who can increase training mileage should expect to improve as long as quality is not sacrificed for quantity. If you push your weekly mileage from 30 to 60 miles a week, you still may not be able to qualify for Boston, but you probably may grab that P.R. the next time you try a marathon.

Eventually all of us must face the fact that nothing comes free. A price must be paid for everything, and that includes excellence. The price that must be paid for wringing the 99th percentile of efficiency from your body may be worth it if you can improve your marathon time from 2:20 to 2:10. It may even be worth it to go from 3:10 to below three hours. Whether it is worth it at the other gradations of achievement can only be determined by each individual involved.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-28-2002 11:19 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Jun-29-2002 12:42 AM              

Anyway, thanks for the post. Refreshing to have someone in the forum say something other than "Run far!"

------------------
profile

IP: Logged

posted Jun-29-2002 07:36 PM            

I don't understand your reference to the arbitrary measurement system. All measurement systems are based on some arbitrary reference point in order to provide a means of comparing two or more measurements. When a distance such as 100 mpw is mentioned it merely provides us all with a common understanding of how far the writer is talking about.

If your argument is that success can be achieved without high mileage (or meters, cubits, stades or any way you think distance should be measured)....show us the proof. Who are all the marathon winners who won on 40 cubits per week?

My own experience (limited as it is) has taken me from 30 km per week to 30 mpw, to 40 mpw, and now to 50 mpw. My pace continues to improve, and while I know that I'll never win a marathon, even at 100 mpw I also know that my personal continued improvement lies in higher weekly mileage, and not solely in applying the principles you've correctly pointed out.

[This message has been edited by tigger (edited Jun-29-2002).]

IP: Logged

posted Jun-29-2002 09:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by silverda:
CoachB, I'm surprised that you didn't feel Kemibe's wrath on this thread. Never has he shown such restraint. Did you beat him up once?

---

Yeah, and I took his lunch money Seriously, maybe he hasn't read it yet. Or, maybe he realizes that what I have written makes sense.

Tigger

No where in my post did I say avoid high miles or lay off the junk miles or quality over quantity. I made my post in order to present information to people who may not have seen that information before. I was hoping that people would use it to help them make their own decisions on training volume and intensity. My references to 100 miles per week being arbitrary is simply that people shoot for a round number. How many people have you ever heard say, "Gee, I would sure like to run 161.29 km per week"?

IP: Logged

posted Jun-29-2002 09:29 PM              

IP: Logged

posted Jun-29-2002 11:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CoachB:
My references to 100 miles per week being arbitrary is simply that people shoot for a round number. How many people have you ever heard say, "Gee, I would sure like to run 161.29 km per week"?

---

Maybe you'd consider that those who are shooting for 100 mpw do so because it just happens to be the threshold to the next level. 90 is a little low, 110 a little high, 100 is just about right. It's not arbitrary at all.

No they wouldn't say 161.29km per week, they'd say they would like to hit 160kpw, which is the same theshold.

CouchB, how do you find time to coach when you waste so much of it on such nonsense as this thread?

[This message has been edited by malmo (edited Jun-29-2002).]

IP: Logged

posted Jun-29-2002 11:54 PM               

Just so you know, when I made the last post, I had just gotten home from spending 6 hours at a car wash with the running club that I organize as a summer base program for my team.

I still stick my guns that 100 is arbitrary. The benefit from running 100 rather than 98 is surely mental (which can be a major benefit, indeed).

IP: Logged

posted Jun-30-2002 01:36 AM              

IP: Logged

posted Jun-30-2002 09:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by skylander:
OK malmo, what if someone ran 90miles off of 1 run a day versus someone doing 100miles off of two-a-days? I suppose the 100mile person is training better. There are more variables than you acknowledge. A simplistic attitude (the most total miles wins) isn't sound advice from someone of your stature. Many people aren't interested in training for the marathon or the 15K and very few people are blessed with the opportunity to have you as a coach. Maybe once you can tell your followers how to transfer base weeks of 110+m into quality 800, 1500, 3000, 5000, 10000m races. Don't assume they have adept coaches to guide them, most don't.

---

Of course it's simplistic, however, it's true. Training is not as complicated as many of you want it to be. You all understand the basics and waste a great deal of time concocting contrived ways to rearrange your mileage. Start with the basics and work out - not the other way around.

I've seen on this and many other message boards runners seeking the "secret" workout. Don't worry about it, they're all pretty much the same. For instance, I see many of you get all worked up about your tempo runs, carve a date in stone on the calendar, run it, carve another date for repeat 1200, run it, carve another date for a long run, run it, and repeat this cycle endlessly. Much of this stuff should be done extemporaneously. By feel. The calendar doesn't know how you are going to feel. And tempo runs, if you are doing them right, can be done 4-5 times a week "on the fly".

If you had a coach like me you wouldn't be given workouts, you'd be given feedback. Coaching has nothing to do with workouts, it's all about prodding and provoking the runner into achieving his maximum potential. Nothing more.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-30-2002 12:58 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Jun-30-2002 01:34 PM              

99.9% of runners in here would be satisfied to be as good as Todd Williams currently is and sure he is on the backside of his career but he does moderate miles, not 140+.

"But right now I'm focused on 80 to 90 miles a week, and biking. I love spending time with the family, so I want to do something where I don't have to travel much. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. I'll drag this out through 2004, 2005 and then we'll look at the future."

Jorge Torres ran roughly 100 miles a week last summer. "Training is going great," said Torres. "I had a little setback [a few weeks ago], but am healthy now. I am back continuing to do basework. Nothing fast, just getting ready for the big races coming up." "I ran out of gas at the end of track, because I did not have time to get in my base," Torres said. "I am running more mileage now and improving on the quality of my mileage. I am working on my strength. I definitely want to do better than last year (in cross country), either second or first. I am definitely going for first... The guys are looking good. This could be our year." So he is saying 100miles in the summer is important to him but not at the total expense of quality.

Dathan Ritzenhein was pretty good in high school and here is a snip from a 2001 interview.
"Well, I love mileage. I love to go out and do long runs. But contrary to popular belief I really haven't done high mileage except this year and the summer of my junior year. I have had maybe 25 weeks this year of 80+ miles and about 40 weeks of 70+ miles so I have been doing the mileage this year and I will truly miss it for about those 4 weeks of intense stuff. But I am keeping up semi-long runs of 12 miles all the way 'til the week before [National Scholastic Outdoors] in Raleigh so I will be strong for USA's." It seems like he enjoyed being in the 70-80+mile range consistently in HS(although his year adds up to 65weeks, so maybe a week to him is 5days)

malmo your random motion training theory is great, groundbreaking stuff. I think it's probably isn't something an inexperienced and marginally talented person could handle if they are bent on always doing 100mile weeks.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-30-2002 02:12 PM              

LRC: How much mileage are you running these days ?

TB: I probably try to run around 80 miles a week. Sometimes I get up to 90 - maybe 3 or 4 times. The last two weeks have been in the 70s but somewhere around 80 is standard for me.

LRC: Do you plan on trying to add a little mileage in the next few years?

TB: Yeah (I do). Kevin (Sullivan - one of Broe's training partners) is consistently at 90-100 miles a week and he doesn't waver too much, and I'd like to get a little closer to him. I tried it for a while but I can tell when I'm doing a little too much as I get nick knacks pains. I got up to about 85 for 3 weeks and had some achilles problems and hamstring problems so I eased it back down to 80, which doesn't sound like much, but it is for me. 80 is pretty much my number right now.
But over the years, you just get stronger. It's a cumulative thing. I feel stronger every time I run. Next year, I'll aim for 85-90 and go from there although I don't ever see myself going much over 90.

LRC: You said you run your easy days a little quicker now. What type of pace are we talking about?

TB: It's a little bit quicker now. We used to run really slow like 7 minute pace for 5-6 miles. Now we're typically out the door at 6:30 pace and we finish up at a good pace. We're not killing ourselves but finishing up at a good pace - 5:45 or 6 minute pace - depending on how you feel. When you're done with the day, you know you worked a bit.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-30-2002 02:59 PM            

The original post said "The reason we in here run is so that we can run faster." It then went on to suggest that an arbitrarily chosen triple digit number of miles had less to do with running faster than carefully crafted training programs. I disagree with that suggestion. For the vast (99% perhaps) majority of runners out there (particularly the ones currently running 20 or 30 mpw and wondering whether they should start running intervals to improve their 10k time) I think more miles, especially an increase to that arbitrary triple digit would do more for speed than runnning 800's at VO2 max pace.

Nowhere in the variables listed was there anything indicating that more running miles would help improve speed. Yet we all know from experience that running more miles makes you faster. Is 100 a good number? Well, it's probably better than 90, which is better than 80, which is..... It's definitely not the right goal for everyone, but then again, who was suggesting that it was?

IP: Logged

posted Jun-30-2002 03:19 PM              

IP: Logged

posted Jun-30-2002 03:32 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Jun-30-2002 07:26 PM              

IP: Logged

posted Jul-01-2002 01:27 PM              

I see no discussion of african marathoners in the nineties,
and their mileages.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-01-2002 02:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
[BNowhere in the variables listed was there anything indicating that more running miles would help improve speed. Yet we all know from experience that running more miles makes you faster. Is 100 a good number? Well, it's probably better than 90, which is better than 80, which is..... It's definitely not the right goal for everyone, but then again, who was suggesting that it was?[/B]

---

Um, Tigger, did you actually read the original post?

"This is a rate that is quite comfortable for most runners. 130 actually feels really easy if you try it. At higher heart rates, the ventricles (large pumping chambers of the heart) do not have enough time to fill fully, hence Stroke Volume drops. So, for increased Stroke Volume, run as much as you want at an easy pace. Your heart will be much stronger."

'This higher capillary density will allow blood to be delivered to working muscles more effectively. It turns out that this density is also a function of time spent training and not nesecarily dependant on training intensity."

"So, for a recap of section one, Train long for your heart and blood vessles while at the same time training intensely enough to lower the oxygen levels in your muscles. Too intensly and you won't be able to go very long, but, too slow and you won't be maximally train your muscles to remove oxygen from your blood".

Everything that I wrote was intended to suggest that there is no one magic training formula or set weekly training distance for running excellence.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-01-2002 02:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
[BNowhere in the variables listed was there anything indicating that more running miles would help improve speed. Yet we all know from experience that running more miles makes you faster. Is 100 a good number? Well, it's probably better than 90, which is better than 80, which is..... It's definitely not the right goal for everyone, but then again, who was suggesting that it was?[/B]

---

Um, Tigger, did you actually read the original post?

"This is a rate that is quite comfortable for most runners. 130 actually feels really easy if you try it. At higher heart rates, the ventricles (large pumping chambers of the heart) do not have enough time to fill fully, hence Stroke Volume drops. So, for increased Stroke Volume, run as much as you want at an easy pace. Your heart will be much stronger."

'This higher capillary density will allow blood to be delivered to working muscles more effectively. It turns out that this density is also a function of time spent training and not nesecarily dependant on training intensity."

"So, for a recap of section one, Train long for your heart and blood vessles while at the same time training intensely enough to lower the oxygen levels in your muscles. Too intensly and you won't be able to go very long, but, too slow and you won't be maximally train your muscles to remove oxygen from your blood".

Everything that I wrote was intended to suggest that there is no one magic training formula or set weekly training distance for running excellence.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-01-2002 02:55 PM               

Also like CJ's post quoting "Once a Runner"--great quote! But QC's workouts in that novel included not only the miles of trials/trial of miles but also the three sets of 20x400. (More miles but also considerably hard effort--no doubt a workout he'd never be able to complete without the mileage base...)

Just some ramblings...back to lurkdom...

IP: Logged

posted Jul-01-2002 04:52 PM            

1. Ability to areobically metabolize glucose or fatty acids (VO2 max)
2. Ability to anaerobically metabolize the same substrates
3. Ability to tolerate the byproducts of anaerobic metabolism
4. Running efficiency
5. Desire."

Um, CoachB, these were your words....I don't see high mileage among them.

IP: Logged

posted Jul-01-2002 05:38 PM              

Sometimes I get concerned when experienced adults recommend inexperienced younger folk to rush into potentially deteriorating situations and when claim that training is simple. To have a long running career you can't be careless just as much as you can't be lazy.

IP: Logged