Good post. Pretty much straight forward. Run more=run faster. I agree.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Can you give some insight into a *normal* run training week for this plan? I'm interested in workout frequency and distance. For example, in a 50 mile week, do you shoot for 5 10-mile runs, or one long run, a couple mid-distance, and a couple short distance, et cetera? Do you ever do two-a-day runs?

Great post. Would you run 5 10 mile runs or have 2 super long runs with smaller runs sprinkled in? I guess I am asking how to get all that mileage in on top of tons of cycling. Thanks in advance.........

Note that many people:

(1) Do not have time to train that much if they are also biking and swimming,

and

(2) There is a greater chance of injuries with the higher miles. I know this is a somewhat controversial idea, as a certain famous coach claims that people get injuries because they do not run enough. Guys who have good enough biomechanics to have made it through an NCAA XC career may not have any problems with high mileage, but that doesn't mean it works for everyone.

This kind of goes hand-in-hand with Mr. Empfield's picklehead article, doesn't it?

Can't argue with that. Just wish I had the motivation to follow up on good advice.

Here's an interesting story regarding running faster vs volume. A couple of years ago I was going on to the track for some speed work. The other people there were all keener AG runner types mostly in their 30's and early to mid 40's. A couple were capable of 35 minute 10 kms. I was the oldest and slowest in the 10 kms. At that time I was fifty and could run a 10 kms in just a few minutes under my age.

The coach decided as a drill to run a few 100 m sprints. To my surprise and everybody elses, I was the second fastest in the sprint. I had been a competitive 100 m sprinter in high school so was quite surprised to see that I still had it. Of course at any distance over 200 m no doubt any of the other runners would have smoked me.

Point is, some people are just not cut out to run distance but can run fast for a short distance. To me running anything longer than 5 or 10 kms starts to become a real chore. Can ride the bike for hours and love every minute of it, but anything more than an hour of running would be torture for me. Consequently I hate running. Part of the problem is no doubt psychological compounded by a bad right knee from a bout years ago of septic arthritis that acts up with too much running.

I'm perfectly happy MOP AG in sprint/Olys just as long as I turn good AG bike splits. However, my wife wants us to do an IM within the next few years, even if just as a one time thing. I keep promising her that I'll think about it. But just the thought of that kind of running volume makes my knee start to ache.

Part of the reason I started thinking along these lines is that I would make up these run plans with certain miles on certain days and certain interval workouts. I never stuck to them. Unless you are a professional then you don’t always control your day and thus cannot always keep to a schedule.

I like to do something like this to get to 50 miles:

Monday—about 6-8 at a very slow pace (I’m still tired from weekend training.)

Tuesday—between 10-12 miles at aerobic threshold. Generally this is the speed you run without giving any thought to it on days when you feel good. Technically speaking it is just below 80 percent of your max heart rate.

Wednesday—6-8 miles

Thursday—6-8 miles

Friday—15-20 miles—I do this Friday evening if possible so that I have a full night’s sleep afterwards. If you do it in the morning you are just trashed all day. If I was doing Olympic Distance I would probably do no more than 15. If you are going Ultra-distance then you will need 20 or more. If I do more than 18 I will do it every other week.

Saturday—0-8 after a long ride on the bike.



This will get you between 43 and 64 miles, but generally it will even out to about 50. If you have time and feel good one day, you do more. If not, then less.



There are several keys to making this work. First you have to work into it slowly. Second, search out soft places to run and stick with them. Grass and trails significantly reduce the pounding. Finally, you have to have a professionally fitted shoe that fits your foot type and you have to change them out often. My feet are my ticket to age-group glory, such as it is, and I do whatever it takes to make them happy.



High mileage injuries come from ignoring the above things and not listening to your body. If my feet hurt after a run I immediately start to figure out why. If my shoes are getting old, I replace them. If I have been pushing the envelope in terms of increasing my volume then I back off. If I have been running on asphalt only then I pay more attention to finding trails.

If time is an issue, then I am a believer in portioning out my training using a running, cycling and then swimming priority list. I have a job, wife and two and a half kids, but sport is my passion, so I make the time. It really become a question of time management.

you get injured or over trained. Nothing interferes with running speed more than an injury and injuries go way up with mileage, especially hard mileage. There is an optimum mileage for everyone. More will be better for some and worse for others.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I am a big believer in varying the mileage from day to day based off of how you feel. If you feel good run more. Some days you have to push through fatigue, but this is a very fine line. Being tired is one thing, but pains in your legs can lead to injuries which stops your training. It all comes down to listening to your body.

If you run three or four times a week I would break it up into a couple of 5-8 mile runs, one 10-12 miler and then a 15-20 miler if you are doing Ironman distance.

For an opposing point of view, using more anecdotal data...

I started running again last fall after several years of biking only. I never ran more than 4-5 miles at a time, and no more than 3-4 times per week. Max mileage per week was probably around 15 miles. I would do build runs, descending from about 6:30/mile to about 5:30/mile, hilly trail runs, and half mile intervals (~2:40-50) on the track. After perhaps 50-75 mile *total*, I was able to break my PRs for 5 miles (<30:00) and for 5K (~17:10), set about 10 years ago. My longest run this past year (and only run over 5.5 miles) was 7.3 miles. I turned 45 this year; my last multi-sport race had been in 1997. My best duathlon (3mi/20mi/2mi) of the year had runs of 5:54/mile and 6:00/mile (the latter with a strained calf from a too-aggressive bike position); I caught and passed the eventual 2nd place in my age group with 200yds to go on the second run.

"Your mileage may vary"

Ken Lehner

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I agree that you can run fast off of low miles. I was a low mile poster child for years myself until I tried something new last year. I got down to 33:30 for 10K off of no more than 25 miles per week. If you do a lot of bike miles then you can really get away with low miles.

However…and I will use an analogy to explain this theory, low mileage has its limits based off your VO2 max which is finite. Think of training as making a weapon with which to fight. Low miles means your sword is very short. If you do a lot of speedwork it will be sharp, but it will never get any bigger and your reach is limited. Running more volume creates a great big sword for you and is limited only by time and recovery. If you add speedwork to volume intelligently then you put a sharp edge on your sword. Now which one would you rather take into battle?Obviously this is all anecdotal, but I read somewhere that Lance Armstrong doesn’t really do speedwork beyond sustained efforts at anaerobic threshold (essential a tempo run). Beyond that he just spends “seven hours a day on my bike” as his commercial tells us. By doing that he has brought his aerobic and anaerobic thresholds as close together as is humanly possible which allows him to ride long and hard.
We don't have that much time to train, but to the extent that we can, the training principle still applies.

To go beyond the "anecdotal" evidence that running more makes you faster, read "Running with Lydiard". I just got it last week and I can't put it down. Everything you have been saying, cdwalton, is in the book. Long, steady (NOT slow) runs, 7 days a week, speedwork only within a few weeks of a race. Obviously, a little adjusting would need to be done to fit in the cycling and swimming, but it can be done with proper time management.

Yes, we can get faster with less mileage, but we cannot reach our full potential. I would say to you, Ken, that you could be EVEN FASTER with more steady miles.

---

Dave in WI
-----------------------------------------------------
"What you once were isn't what you want to be anymore" - Wilco

Incidently, Arthur Lydiard's theories were what I based the whole training plan on in the first place. My problem this summer came when I tried to combine lots of run miles with PowerCrank cycling and then twice a week speedwork to get ready for the Marine Corps Marathon. My body finally said "enough" and I was down for the count for most of August.

The speedwork came from a running coach with a more traditional approach and it was just too much. I lasted about three weeks and then the meltdown occured.

On the other hand...

I switched to exclusively steady-state long running after a decent half marathon in January and a decent 10k in December -- both done under conventional easy-hard training at about 30-40 miles per week.

For 7 months I ran 35 (min) to 50 (max) per week at Lydiard's "steady state" pace, and added tempo runs 6 weeks from my goal race.

My "A" race for the summer was a half at the end of August. I finished 12 minutes slower than my January race, and suffered miserably. This was despite it being a net downhill course. Worst running experience of my life. And -- all of my benchmarks (easy-medium-hard HR's) got noticeably worse during the summer.

I'm regrouping right now and trying some new things to get back on the improvement curve. A big diet of steady miles just made me slower -- even at lower heart rates!

This month's Runner's World has an interesting article that really highlights how different people respond to different things. For every person that needs long steady miles is someone that runs 3 days a week really hard. Then there are the people that do long, FAST miles, like Kahlid K (world marathon record holder). Success is found all over the map.

I recall an interview with Craig Walton who said he never does long runs anymore. Only tempo and speedwork. He can run 31 off the bike, so who's to argue?

Thanks for the interesting post. I just fits my current situation. I am a strong cyclist but weaker runner. I do 10k in a tri in just under 40 minutes. This winter I plan to work on my running. I read before that I should run very regular to improve. But I didn't know how to plan this workouts. I thought about starting a thread on run training.
After this thread I will probably run 5 times a week with a steady pace in winter. I will include some Fartleks in a nearby hilly forrest with nice trails.
Does this sound good.

Felix

---

http://www.weilenmann.ch.vu

I just read Lydiard's "Running to the Top" and was going to say that this sounds a lot like his plans - do as much steady running as possible, 4 weeks of hills, then add speed and race.

Obviously you can go to any running forum and get into a quality vs. quantity debate rather easily. I have two friends that remind me how different everyone can be. The first guy couldn't break 12 minutes for 2 miles in high school. After running 31-32s for 8k during his freshman year in college he got serious and built his mile up to over 100 mpw, which was probably double what he'd done before. The next year he was running 27s, he's since graduated and just ran 25:15 at our alumni meet. The second guy used to run 50 mpw in college and never broke 26. He's been out of college 8 years now and only runs 25-30 mpw. He just ran our alumni meet in 25:20.

Of course the quantity guys will say that the 2nd guy could put in 100 mile weeks and run 24s. Maybe, maybe not.

Zeke

Congratulations on your discouvery and your results.

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that you can make training as complicated or as simple as you want to make it.

Many coaches and books go over-the-top with details, numbers, schedules and a mind boggling array of scientific data and information. The other option is, to paraphrase an old Nike slogan, just get out the door and do it!! If you are consistant, the volume/intensity is modest and reasonable and you work in enough recovery, you WILL get results. It will not be overnight. The body does not work that way, but if start to look at it in one year chunks of time the improvement will come.

Final note: For years people have been trying to figure out why the Ethiopians and the Kenyans run so well. Their dominance of distance running events is extraordinary. Ruling out genetics and other issues, when you look at their training, it is really quite simple: They, A) Run more and B) spend more of that time running at race pace. That's it!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

cdwalton,

Thanks for the post and to all the replies. I have worked hard to increase mileage this summer and want to continue through the winter as well. The only "speed" work I have done has been tempo runs on occassion when my body really feels like it. But that, for me, is just a faster or more steady pace than the usual long slow distance pace.

The reason for my post is to clarify some perspective from a relative newbie (3 years in tri). "Speed" work is an interesting concept. I am sure that running hard intervals on a 400m track works for some. I will not discount that, but the word "speed" is a bit of a misnomer when it come to training for distance triathlon, IMHO. What we are talking about here is building strength and endurance. Some say that you have to train fast to race fast. But how can you say "fast" when you are talking about running 2:00 under your training pace for a 1/2 marathon after getting off the bike - and Oly distance too for that matter. Some run faster than others, but we all stay within our own zone of +/- 1:30 min/mile, which it seems does not take much practice or form changes to do. Am I wrong here? Is there more of a difference than this?

I digress, the only point I am making is that distance builds endurance. And endurance is what you need to run fast after already putting in some strong efforts in the first two legs of a tri. My success has too been attributed to running further, sometimes at a slightly stronger pace, and some work with weights. Build endurance and having some wind left is the key to running success in tri. That seems to be the solution for me anyway.

Thanks again for sharing your experience. It's very helpful.

Steve

Steve -



'speedwork' doesn't have to be 400m or anything like that - it can be something as simple as 10-30 seconds pick ups - changing your foot speed and turnover. Doing a fartlek run is speed work - running mile repeats is not speed work IMO - and 400s - well most of us do that as 'pacing' - not speed work. If we were truly running 400s for speed we would be out there running them all out - ready to puke when we were finished. Stick with short bursts for speed work - this will help change your cadence, foot strike and the little things that will help your pace.



Mike Ricci

Head Coach - www.d3multisport.com

---

Mike Ricci
2017 USAT World Team Coach
USAT National Coach of the Year
Coaching Triathletes since 1992.

When you say “distance builds endurance” that is exactly the point I am trying to make. I think it applies to runners, but it is even more important for triathletes who have to ride first. Here is an example of what I mean:



My friend who I mentioned in the first post does huge mileage. In a two-week span we both raced the same half-ironman and then a half-marathon. He ran 12 minutes faster than me during the run portion of the half-ironman after riding about three minutes faster. A week later at the half-marathon I beat him, albeit by three seconds. Why? He rides at least three times as much as I do and runs about 25 percent more.

My pace during the run portion of the half-ironman was exactly the same as my daily run pace, so in theory, I have no need to ever run faster than that if I don’t increase my bike mileage significantly enough to have more strength for the run.



This applies even more to Ironman training, because most people cannot run the entire 26 miles after riding 112.

Someone earlier mentioned Steve Larson, and while I don’t know exactly what he does, I assume he doesn’t run much. He gets away with it because all the bike miles he rides builds that huge aerobic engine for him and then he only needs to run enough to keep all the tendons and ligaments stretched, because, relatively speaking, you just don’t run that fast off a hard ride at Half-IM or IM distance.

In conclusion, I am going back to my friend’s philosophy again (hopefully he doesn’t mind me referring back to him all the time). He doesn’t run speedwork per se, but just runs a little faster on days he feels good and not so fast on others. His occasional races serve to up the pace a bit along with occasional running races. I am now a believer that anything more than that is unnecessary, unless you only do Sprint or Olympic Distance tri’s and then you may need to do some tempo runs close to your anaerobic threshold for that extra little bit of foot speed.

  
Cd, you write good things here.

My regular training is very similar to your style. I run between 45-80 miles per week, depending on how I feel. Usually I make the 65-75 range, and dwindle down to 45 in times of stress.

I’ve done the text-book speed work as you comment on. However, I don’t seem to get a lot from it. I do, however, run extended periods at the aerobic threshold pace. If I don’t feel good I skip the threshold and keep it slightly slower.

My current goal is to qualify for the Boston Marathon. I’ve only run one marathon, the Little Rock inaugural last year – very hilly. I completed it in 3:47. The longest run prior to that was 18 miles, so I was pleased with the time [I’m 40]. My qualifier race is in November on a relatively flat course, and I’ve got to complete it in 3:20 or less, so my fingers are crossed.

Speed work in the classic sense wouldn’t help my goal nearly as much as consistent medium-high mileage at a consistent pace.

For the shorter races, 5ks, etc, I’m sure that textbook speed-work is more productive. However, I can also say that the threshold runs for long periods of time also contribute to better shorter course times.

Cheers,

Sv-

Good to read about your success CD. I started a similiar experiment for the same reasons a month ago and hope to achieve something similiar.

This has been a great topic that has made me think about my training. Given that I only have a finite amount of training time would you agree that I would be further ahead ( literally :) )by riding less and running more ? This is assuming that I am injury free etc... I am assuming that I would not lose too much on the bike side due to the overall fitness improvement.

This is a great post with some great insights.

Can I make one general suggestion for the group here on this forum? I am a big believer in time at heartrate. So when you guys post mileage per week, or per run, at EZ pace or AT pace, it's helpful. But my suggestion is to give us some insight into time, either by providing pace information that we can translate into times, or the times themselves. This way the rest of us can equate a time training volume to the mileage posted here. Time volume at heartrate is where we all can be equal in our comparisons, not by weekly or daily mileage. Just to be clear, when one guy posts that his Monday run is 10 miles at easy pace, that can be 80 minutes for some and 110 minutes for others - quite a swing. Just a suggestion. Thanks.

Steve

The bike vs. run miles is a good question. Last year I rode twice a week with a very fast 25 miles on Wednesday and pretty hard 50 miles on Saturday. I was not slow, but my run and ride were very disparate in terms of competitiveness.

This year early on I really made an effort to ride more and I have made steady improvement on last year’s times in the same races.

The one kink in this was that I started using PowerCranks in July and that really cut my miles, almost in half. What I found was that I maintained my performance level with less riding. Since I was obviously trying to go faster then I need to ride a similar amount to before but do it using the cranks.

Again using my friend as a basis for a good percentage, I would say your run to bike miles should be about 1 to 2 based off of time, i.e. if you run 40 miles and that takes you about five and a half hours, then you should probably spend about 11 hours in the saddle. I don’t always do this, but when I do, my ride and run performance tends to hit a similar placing percentile at races.

I bought a heart rate monitor last year and used it fairly frequently. However, since I went cheap, it died on me and have not used it much this year.

By now I now how hard I run to get to certain heart rates, so here is the answer to your questions:

80 percent max heart rate for me is about 154 bpm and this equates to about 7-7:10 per mile. That is my max aerobic rate and the rate I run when I feel good and run by feel only.

On the bike my “feel good” rate is hard to peg because there are so many hills around here that I am going up and down too much to get a good idea.

At the above heart rate and pace, an eight mile run takes between 56 minutes and one hour. Thus, 56 miles of running is about seven hours at my max aerobic rate.

My AT rate is between 165-175 bpm or between 85 and 90 percent max heart rate. If I use a heart rate monitor I try to bump as close as I can to the upper limit without going over since that is where I spend all my time in Olympic and Half-IM distance racing.



The only reason I use miles as a basis for logging info is because we all have to run the same distance, regardless of how fast we are, so miles are miles whether you run them at six, seven, eight, nine or more minutes per mile. The Africans who run obscenely fast run their easy days at 6 min per mile and run 100 miles a week that way (thus 600 minutes), but I can run the same 600 minutes and only cover 85 miles. I won’t get the same benefit unless I run the whole hundred miles, regardless of how long it takes me.

I am not sure I totally agree with this. I understand that in a race we have to all run the same distance. So when training for a marathon, it's common practice to have your long training runs in the 18-20 mile range. But that is mostly to get the runner acclimated to the mental aspect of the 26 mile race. That's different than what we are talking about here. I think most people talk miles out of convenience. I have been diligent over the last few years concentrating on time at heartrate during my workouts. SERIOUS Training for Endurance Athletes, Friel and others always seem to refer to time for a workout, not distance - 45 minutes in the pool (not so many yards), 2.5 hours on the bike (not 50 miles), and a 60 minute tempo run. All these are not related to pace.

Maybe it's me, but I do all my workouts based on time and only use distance as a check for increased fitness levels. Did I run farther at 155 bpm average than I did two months ago?

As for having to run the same distance to get the same benefit ... Let me pose this question. I run my base building miles at 10:00 pace (I have always been a slow runner, but indulge me here for a moment). Say I go out for a 6 mile overdistance run and it takes me 60 minutes. You do the same run at the same %Max heartrate and it takes you 43 minutes. I would say that I got more benefit than you - not the same benefit. On the other hand, my training volume would be way higher than yours doing the same mileage.

I would be interested in what the coaches here think on this issue. Are your athlete's training plans built on time or distance? And if you say distance, is it distance because you know your client's pace so well, which would imply that it really is based on time? I am really interested in this, mostly because I am one of the few folks in our local group that will run for 1/2 my time, turn around and then run back. All my training is done on time at HR level. Thanks for your input.

Steve