Options

100mpw

1356

Comments

  • Options
    Stevie  GStevie G ✭✭✭✭
    consistency is king image
  • Options
    The more you run, the more you realise that the running bit is really very easy/simple. The hard bit is getting everything else right.

     No point running 100 mpw if you're not ready for it. That likely means spending a lot of time at 70, then 80, then 90 mpw before stepping up. The amount of people who jump up without thinking about it is beyond me.

  • Options

    I take it from your comments HH that you have had more success than most at avoiding injuries.

  • Options

    Nope. I've made plenty of mistakes. I just learn from them.

  • Options
    Good for you. You will go far.



  • Options

    A friend of mine used to cover 100mpw regularly. He's a fairly large guy and managed to get his marathon down to 2:35

    I asked him if 100mpw played havoc with his family life. He laughed and said, 'no way - I work 12 miles from home - I just used to run to work every day, sometimes home. If I felt sore, I'd bike it the other way'. 

    Alas, the cartilege in his knee is worn to the point where he can no longer run... I feel gutted for him, knowing how much he loved running. 

    The moral of the story: everybody's different and there's no reason why anyone else should suffer the same fate of my friend. However...if you are going to run that kind of mileage, do it intelligently - make it count. Don't do 'junk miles'. 

  • Options
    Thanks for your moralising, and the use of the word 'alas' - very biblical.
  • Options
    Stevie  GStevie G ✭✭✭✭

    not sure the word alas ever pops up in the bible to be fair. You're thinking of Shakespeare. image

    Just wondering if someone who did 100miles a week and got down to 2.35 for a marathon just ran in a scattergun approach. Would have thought someone of that ilk would have sculpted a good programme.

  • Options
    Yes. More medieval.


    I don't think I could have picked a more testing time to start running 100mpw. The weather since the end of November has been as extreme as I can ever remember.

    In the week which ended on Boxing Day I somehow managed to get all my runs in apart from the speed session which fell on Christmas Day. I didn't venture out that day. I just stayed in and binged like everyone else. I made up for it on Boxing Day by running the 13 miles at a good pace to finish in 1-22. The tempo runs last week were done at 5.40 and that still felt a couple of gears below flat out. I'm planning on keeping that pace for this week's tempo runs.

    Trying to keep up with the stretching twice a day. It only takes about 5 minutes and for me it's a good way of telling if I have any muscle tightness which I need to keep an eye on.

    I missed this morning's 7 mile run and had a lie in - it is the holiday season after all!

  • Options
    Twatt wrote (see)
    Thanks for your moralising, and the use of the word 'alas' - very biblical.

    Well, that's somewhat ironic, considering I'm an Atheist.

    Why accuse someone of moralising when they're honestly stating a fact? Did you expect everyone to say it was a great idea when you started this thread? Did you think no one would advise caution? (in this case, caution based on a real life example). Many reading this thread could get into all kinds of trouble should they attempt that kind of mileage. Many people do not have the biomechanics, patience and discipline to build up to it. If you're on 60-70 mpw, you might find shorter sessions at faster pace benefit more, for example. My point was that, if you're contemplating such mileage, do it intelligently - or risk ending up like my friend. 

    For what it's worth, he did 100-ish mpw for years. He still is a fitness nut, but doesn't run. He frequently worked out 3-times a day, e.g. bike to work, gym at lunch, run home. I haven't gone deeply into his plans with him as I don't feel comfortable reminding him about something he can't do. I've yet to get an answer from him, though, when I've asked training questions.

    Let's for the sake of discussion say he didn't have a well organised plan. Well, that reinforces the point that you need to be clued up to attempt 100mpw, doesn't it?

  • Options
    sorry to be thick but is 100 mpw some sort of "magic" number ?

    I know Arthur Lydiard was the great proponent of it but is 100 really necessary? Haile Geb and Queen Paula do around 140 a week but then again they have the time and the inclination  image

    could the same be achieved on 60 or 77 or 91 miles ? could the same result be achieved on less?

    (I get the feeling that is the great unaswerable question)

    My other question was,how longs a bit of string?

  • Options
    Answer to first question: no.
    Second question: who can say?
    Third question: 42
  • Options
    aha! to the point
  • Options

    There is no magic number

    Contrary to belief Lydiard never said 100 miles was the magic number its other people who have because he might have mentioned that  so and so did 100 on one occassion

    anyhow just because one person does 100 doesn't mean everyone has to do it

    After all aren't we all an experiment of one

  • Options

    100m per week means completely different things to runners of different speeds thus mileage is really only a useful measure when analysing your own running.

    Alas, thus - we'll be jousting in a minute.

  • Options
    Moraghan wrote (see)

    100m per week means completely different things to runners of different speeds thus mileage is really only a useful measure when analysing your own running.

    Alas, thus - we'll be jousting in a minute.

    Oh no its bad enough with the sales frenzied shoppers image
  • Options

    hmmm foresooth

     so one of Lydiards students 100 miles could be a lot shorter time on your feet than us mere mortals.

    Ok roger that

  • Options

    Could you run as fast on 99.3 miles a week? 

    Moraghan wrote (see)

    100m per week means completely different things to runners of different speeds thus mileage is really only a useful measure when analysing your own running.

    Alas, thus - we'll be jousting in a minute.


    'Nail', 'head' and 'hit'.

    I'm not singling out the original poster here (I'm sure his plan is beautifully balanced), but it does strike me as odd that people get hung up on the amount of mileage they're putting in, as opposed to the particular 'style' of plan they're following, i.e. the balance between training types. 

  • Options
    Came across this training info on Ovett. It's taken from The British Milers Club Spring 1999 edition.

    A 'Typical' Winter Week Training. Nov - Mar 79/80.

    Sun am. 10m road. 57/60 mins.
    pm. 10m road. 54/55 mins.
    Mon am. 5m road. 35 mins easy.
    pm. 10m road. 52/53mins fast/steady.
    Tue am. 10m road. Hard - on road 4x300m approx with fast jog rec, then another very steep hill, 4x400m approx, jog rec.
    Wed am. 10m road. 58/60mins.
    pm. 10m. plus technique work at Crystal Palace.
    Thu am. 5m road. 35mins.easy.
    pm. 10m road. 55/58mins steady.
    Fri.am. 5m road. 35mins easy.
    pm. 5m road. 35mins easy.
    Sat.am. 5m road. 35mins easy.
    pm. 6x1000m. Park. Hard 30-60 ecs recovery (in spikes).
    I'm shattered just writing it !
  • Options
    Stevie  GStevie G ✭✭✭✭

    Cripes. I could do the 5miles in 35mins bit at my steady pace...but all of those 10milers are above my race pace.

    Still...it's probably unwise to compare to an elite runnerimage

  • Options

    But read it in the context of a 46 minute 10 mile runner and most of those 10 mile training sessions are not  much more than steady runs.

    Runs at 20% over race pace wont have taken a great deal out of him.

    The one thing to note is just how much emphasis is placed on using 10 miles as a training block - it has  featured highly in the training of the elites all the way though from 800 metres to marathon.

  • Options

    Any idea why 10 is the magic number parkrunfan?

    I wonder did he do any conditioning work, e.g. core stuff, in his schedule although perhaps he is just specifically mentioning the running.

    That is a serious training schedule - you also consider the fact that he was primarily an 800/1500m man and it's a lot of mileage.

  • Options
    Perhaps he had a handy 5M loop from his doorstep and ran either 1 or 2 laps accordingly?
  • Options

    Tommygun maybe its not so much the 10 miles but the time on feet thing 1 hour or so = 10 miles in Ovett's case

     for mere mortals an hour is much less, so write 7 miles or 6 or however far 1 hour will take you

    in fact if you ignore the miles it looks sensible( relative to your ability to stand the miles) really

    Sun am.  road. 57/60 mins.
    pm.  road. 54/55 mins.
    Mon am.  road. 35 mins easy.
    pm.  road. 52/53mins fast/steady.

  • Options

    Probably right goldbeetle.

    I would love to do 100 mpw but my body seems to have a habit of breaking down between 40 & 50 image

    Interesting to read what a guy like that does.

  • Options

    so about 10 hours a week in total which is conservative compared to some elites

    is that because he was a short distance runner/?

    if he had gone up to marathons would the time on his feet increased therefore pushing his milage up to say 130 a week?

  • Options

    In terms of time I'd imagine there's another good few hours in there for stretching/core work/gym work etc. 

    I'd have thought he'd maybe double his mileage if he went to marathon.  I know a few guys who'd be about the 200 mark (crazy people) per week for a marathon.

    I wonder what the top top marathon guys do a week? Any idea?

  • Options
    tommygunn wrote (see)

    Any idea why 10 is the magic number parkrunfan?

    I wonder did he do any conditioning work, e.g. core stuff, in his schedule although perhaps he is just specifically mentioning the running.

    That is a serious training schedule - you also consider the fact that he was primarily an 800/1500m man and it's a lot of mileage.

    I wouldnt say that theres anything 'magic' about 10 but it is certainly a good block of training to have as a staple diet.

    There was nothing unusual about Ovett's training. Crammy was doing similar stuff with typical weeks in excess of 100mpw and happy enough racing 10 milers in 46 minutes. Dave Glassborrow was also a high mileage runner knocking out 10 milers for fun and was faster than Ovett over 1500m in the early years of their careers. 

    Even looking back at my own diaries, when racing 55 min 10 milers the training was littered with several 10 milers per week, mostly in the 60-65 minute range.

  • Options
    parkrunfan wrote (see)
    tommygunn wrote (see)

    Any idea why 10 is the magic number parkrunfan?

    I wonder did he do any conditioning work, e.g. core stuff, in his schedule although perhaps he is just specifically mentioning the running.

    That is a serious training schedule - you also consider the fact that he was primarily an 800/1500m man and it's a lot of mileage.

    I wouldnt say that theres anything 'magic' about 10 but it is certainly a good block of training to have as a staple diet.

    There was nothing unusual about Ovett's training. Crammy was doing similar stuff with typical weeks in excess of 100mpw and happy enough racing 10 milers in 46 minutes. Dave Glassborrow was also a high mileage runner knocking out 10 milers for fun and was faster than Ovett over 1500m in the early years of their careers. 

    Even looking back at my own diaries, when racing 55 min 10 milers the training was littered with several 10 milers per week, mostly in the 60-65 minute range.

    aha the magic 1 hour mark
Sign In or Register to comment.