I certainly don't know what's 'better' from a purely physiological perspective, but I do know that (a) I enjoy mixing up my runs -- some long, some short, some hard, some easy -- and that if I'm enjoying my running, I'm more likely to do more of it; and (b) when I'm training for an IM or a marathon, I want to get in some 18-20 mile runs, and as long as they don't totally dominate my running for the week, I don't stress too much about whether they are 25% or 33% or 38.36% of my total mileage. But that's just me, and I just do this stuff for fun.

---

----
Michael

I don't think people should run the same distance every day. But I do believe a lot of people rely on the long run to get their mileage up and I believe their long runs constitute too high a proportion of their total weekly mileage. As i said in a subsequent post, the long run shouldn't really be more than 25% of your weekly volume. I think most people should be aiming for greater consistency. Most people on this board would do themselves well by getting to the point that they can run 7-8 miles every day.

Also, better way to vary workouts rather than mileage would be incorporate changes in intensity and terrain.

Sure it does in the context of this thread. Most triathletes have crappy running habits. They run 3-4x per week with minimal mileage during their daily day in day out runs. Then they do a long run.

If you follow this thread, what a few of us are saying is if you get you are running 6-7x per week 7 or so miles per run, you are probably well ahead of what a normal triathlete runs in a normal week. Got it?

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I'm building up to 55 right now. Here is my last week:

M- Rest or cross train

T- 9 miles with 5 miles at half marathon pace

W- 5 mile recovery run( easy pace)

Th- 10 miles at whatever pace I feel

F- Cross train/recovery/rest

Sat- 6.2 mile race

Sun- 16 mile long run

Total for the week- 46.2


I have been building up to this since June and plan on being at 50 + weekly miles by the end of November.

Good luck

I have no idea what most triathletes or the average triathlete does or doesn't do in terms of their run training. I don't think triathletes should run 6-7 days/week. I don't even think runners should run 7 days/week except at the elite level.

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan

That's clear. And what's also clear is that if you do something silly like 5-5-5-5-5-0-25 then you are at best asking for trouble.

But OP says we wants to run 50mpw and wants to know a decent way to do it. I agree that running 7 miles 7 times per week is a 'decent' way to do it, and will put you way ahead of 'most triathletes' (which from what I can tell wouldn't take much). I also think that there are better, and (for me at least) very much more interesting, ways to break up that 50 miles. (And again, speaking for myself, I'm pretty sure that I would pretty quickly get sick of 7 miles per day every day. But I have no problem maintaining my interest with things like 4-8-6-0-10-6-16 with a little mid-week intensity or hills for added flavor.)

---

----
Michael

I actually don't think running huge mileage is as important as running frequently and quality. I got a lot faster on about 25-30 miles/week.

It's really not worth it if you're just doing one crazy long run.

---

kelly dunleavy o'mara
@kellydomara

Variety is good. I certainly run weeks like you outline. But I also think that a week of straight 7's also has value and should be incorporated in the context of a training cycle. For example, if one week has a long run, well, you're likely only able to squeeze in one or two speed sessions when you factor in the time needed to recover as well as the fact you don't want to run hard the day before a long run. However, in a week of straight 7's, you can probably squeeze in three quality workouts. If your weekly volume is above 45 the value of a long run (excepting for IM or marathon) is important but doesn't need to be weekly. I think people should alternate weeks with long-runs followed by weeks of comparable mileage but without the concentration of the long run. The weekly long run is so sacrosanct in people's perception of the proper training schedule that my 7x7.15 seems radical!

Also, if you're varying intensity, you can have such big swings in the amount of time running, that even 7x7.15 can seem 7 very different workouts to keep things interesting! ;)

I've very interested in why you think this way. Why shouldn't triathletes run that often? And why only elite runners?

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Agree 100%. The occasional 7x7 or some such is itself variety, and I could be into it for a while. And I agree that the 7s don't have to all be the same. Still, month in and month out? No thanks.

---

----
Michael

If I hadn't read Barry's excellent posts on this subject I would not really understand this or be open to agreement. ALL the major plans have huge mileage (in comparison to the 1:2:3) on the weekends and you just get to believe that that is the norm, standard and what you should shoot for. What you've said here (and in other posts) is solid information and very much appreciated.

---

http://harvestmoon6.blogspot.com
https://www.caringbridge.org/visit/katasmit

Yes, all the plans have big mileage on the weekends, because they are designed for a discrete duration leading up to an event (typically 12-24 weeks). Those plans are designed under the assumption that people start the program with a strong base of day-in and day-out running. I think a lot of people will "train to train." They look at the Daniels or Pfitzinger programs which have 15 mile long runs in week one and think to themselves, "gee, i better incorporate a weekly long run of 15 miles if I'm going to do that program." Of course, you need some long runs to take that on, but if you slowly build up to being able to run 7-8 miles every day, then running 15 miles actually isn't that hard. People ignore that daily runs are the foundation upon which long-runs are built. Also, if you start with a base of running every day 7-8 miles, once you start adding a long run, you can't help but run high volume. If you go 6x7, you're at 42 miles, add a 12-20 miler, and all of a sudden you're at 54-62. And then it becomes really easy to layer in a mid-week middle distance run of 12-14 to get you at or even above 70 miles.

I used to be a 3/4 day a week runner with lots of cross training. I got decent results, including a sub-3hr marathon. I had plateaued, though, but when I started to follow the BarryP plan of running every day, I was able to ramp my mileage considerably. I went from one of those peak at 40mpw, including a 20 miler, to a peak at 68 miles. The result was going from a 2:58 marathon PR to a 2:50 last week. I hope to break 2:50 next year.

I can now run 7-8 miles every day without a problem. I rarely take days off from running now; I went 48 days straight during my marathon build. While in retrospect that was probably not the smartest thing, and I should have had at a couple off days in there, I think that's preferable to the normal 10 days that a lot of people would have built in. Having gone through a 4 month cycle of >50 mpw, my plan is to incorporate more speed work for next year, but it will still be a relatively low percent of my overall volume.

Listen to what BarryP has to say about running. JoeO and Dave Roche also have great insights.

well, the idea that running distances are accurate to the hundredth of a mile is pretty radical, in my book. but i know that's not your main point, and that "50" doesn't really mean much, especially for those metric folks.

for me, the 7x7.15 (or x7, or x7.5, or x8) just isn't that appealing. I'll echo what earlier posters said: i'm in this for fun, and variety adds to that.
for many people, having at least one day with no running is helpful.

as for the percentage of your weekly mileage that your long run should take up: I agree that it should be less than 50%, and probably less than 40%. But for triathletes, I think that hitting 25% would be pretty tough. I think that a week with 45-50 miles running, a 15-18 mile long run, and 50-100 miles biking is really quite well balanced.

If base building:

M - 5.5
T - 11
W - 5.5
R - 11
F - 5.5
S - 16-17
S - 0

If in season, T and W will be workouts of some sort.




The bigger gains come at the lower milage. For example, 0 miles a week has me running a 5K in 30 minutes. 10 miles a week will get me to a 20 minute 5K. 20 miles a week will get me to about 19:00. I tell people that the minimum for an AG athlete is is somewhat serious is about 5 hours of running a week. For someone who is serious about being competetive, go to Kona, etc. that number becomes 6-7 hours a week. Caution - this does not mean that one should bump up their milage today. All milage should be gradualy worked toward.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I think prescribing 7 runs in 7 days is saying one of two things: either there are circumstances where no rest day is optimal over a 7 day period or that a run is the optimal way to recover from previos run training. I don't believe the former at all and think the latter case is rare outside of elites. Moving to triathletes, and I'm assuming amateur athletes here with limited training time, you have to assess the marginal benefit of those sixth and seventh runs in the context of also cycling, swimming, and recovering. I think it would be exceedingly rare to find a case where the marginal benefit of the 7th run is higher than the other options. Even the sixth run is suspect in my mind as I think in most instances a triathlete would be better off using that training time on cycling or swimming, both of which are easier to recover from.

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan

It's amazing to me how rarely people do a 50 mile week like this:

Mon: 7.15
Tues: 7.15
Wed: 7.15
Thur: 7.15
Fri: 7.15
Sat: 7.15
Sun: 7.15

I have a friend who is basically a non-runner 1/2 the year. Every other month he runs 12 miles a day (6 miles twice a day...same route). He does this 6 days a week. I don't understand his motivation. He is not particularly fast. He doesn't race. This is just what he does 6 months a year. The other 6 months a year he does power weight lifting and martial arts.

Bernie

---

______________
"Slowbern has always made astute observations."-Casey 03/10/2009
2013-2014 Detroit Lions---13-3 until proved otherwise.

kevinc,

I suppose I can chime in a little. I am not an elite runner, by any stretch. I'm not particularly fast. For years I have been pretty consistent at getting in 35 miles a week, running 5 days a week.

This summer, I trained to run a 50 mile race. I had to bump up my mileage to do this. My long runs got a little longer, but the most significant change was that I ran 13 of every 14 days instead of 10 days. Also, I followed up my long runs with longer mid-distance runs (for example if I did a 25 mile run, the next day I would run a 12 mile run).

In July I was averaging 50-55 mile weeks. In August I was averaging 60-65 mile weeks. Once you are able to run more days, it is easy to bump your mileage with modest increases every day.

Another interesting thing that happened is my recovery was amazing by the end of the summer.

I don't know if this is much help for you, and my experience is only my own. I don't often post on this forum because I know there are people who know WAY more than I do about running and biking and exercise physiology. It just sounds like you are kind of where I was 6 months ago.

Bernie

---

______________
"Slowbern has always made astute observations."-Casey 03/10/2009
2013-2014 Detroit Lions---13-3 until proved otherwise.

I'm in the process of building up this fall/winter, but my plan for 50 mi/wk WILL BE as follows:

M - 10 mi
Tu - 5 mi (after 40 min on CT)
W - 10 mi
Th - 5 mi (after 40 min on CT)
F - 5 mi
Sa - 15 mi
Su - off

ALL easy paced miles (~135 ave HR, or ~8:40 mm). Thanks to BarryP and others for encouraging run frequency which makes a big difference.. and is much easier on the legs, at least for me.

I hope to get to 50 in a couple of months. I'm currently at about 7/3.5/7/3.5/3.5/10.5/0 for 35 mi/wk.

I've yet to hear a triathlete say something like "I ran too fast in that last race, should have run :90 slower, that would have been better". Mainly what I hear is I don't understand why I ran x-xx minutes slower then I thought I should. That is where those extra runs come into value. It's not about one week or two but an extended period of time of running those extra runs.

The two places where triathletes lose the biggest amounts of time to the leaders in their categories are the swim (which is a topic for another thread) and the run. It's not uncommon for someone to lose 3-5 min in the bike and 30-45 min in the run.

The biggest bullshit lie in triathlon is ride smarter to run faster. If you don't have the run fitness to run fast, it doesn't matter how smart you ride, you still are not going to run fast. Having better run fitness is what allows you to have a greater margin of error on the bike and still run well.

If you are having recovery issues, even with running 6-7 days per week as a triathlete, you have bigger training plan design issues that need to be addressed.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Eric, I wanted to address a few of your points because I think they represent a common but understandable misconceotion among a lot of triathletes.

******
Weekly mileage is less correlated to your AT that most people guess.
******

What we know is that if you want to run fast in a distance event, you need lots of milage and, depending on the event, moderate amounts of threshold work and a little bit of interval and speed training.

The only place where this is not true is in the heads of people who don't think it is. You won't find a successful distance program in the world where this is not the case. If it is possible to succeed otherwise, no one has figured out a way to show it.

********
I think prescribing 7 runs in 7 days is saying one of two things: either there are circumstances where no rest day is optimal over a 7 day period or that a run is the optimal way to recover from previos run training.
********

Why do you a 48 hour period to rest? Elites don't run 7 times a week. They run TWELVE times a week!

What Desert Dude and I try to get across to people is that the trade off is not between doing 3 8 mile runs or doing 7 8 mile runs. If 8 miles is tough enough to require a rest day the next day, then there is no way you can just double the amount of runs that you do.

The idea is to trade your 8 mile runs for 7 runs that average 3 1/2 miles. Think about it. If you can run 8 miles and instead you only ran 3 1/2, you will probably be pretty well rested by the next day.

There is a point in running where you push the body beyond the point where it just takes too long to repair. That is pushing it way to hard and inhibits the main contributor to stimulate improvement, which is consistent training volume.

I don't wish to read too much into what you wrote....maybe you think 5 days a week is ideal for triathletes, which isn't unreasonable, but I have run into so many who think that you should only run 3-4 times a week. Not only will you not find a college or pro program in the world that does that, you can't even find a mediocre high school team that runs that seldom. Running is simply an activity that you can do every day, and you need to do it at least 20-30 times a month if you want to come close to your potential.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

 I don't understand why I ran x-xx minutes slower then I thought I should at Silverman. Do you think it is because I just run one hour, six days a week most of the time?

Chad

5 runs, 4 bikes, and 3 swims tends to work pretty well at 12 workouts a week. ive tried reducing the swim frequency down to 2 but didnt feel like it was enough even from a swimming background.

Not that I don't believe everything I read on slowtwitch, but I've decided to train similar to the program in "Run Less Run Faster" as my program for the NYC half marathon next March, in which I plan to run somewhere in the range of 1:17 to 1:20. You mentioned in your original post that no one has shown improvement with anything other than consistent training volume, but these guys actually have, so I guess I disagree with you on your point. Admittedly, they are not coaching elites, but they are coaching people to run low 3 hour marathons, which is faster than most triathletes can run, and doing so in a manner that is consistent with actually having a life besides triathlon.

The reason I became interesting in this program is because this was my first year in triathlon and I was able to improve my running fairly significantly while decreasing both my volume and frequency, which was an unexpected surprise. Of course I was adding cycling and swimming at the same time I was reducing run volume/frequency. So I am running an n=1 experiment to see what happens when I try something radically different. I guess if it goes poorly then I'll go back to running more often (though I'm still not going to run 7 days/week).

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan

I did the run FIRST "run less" plan 2 summers ago. I liked part of it but ended up injured because i don't think I had a proper base for the speed work and I worked the plan backward. I didn't run the paces based on my current speed. I ran the paces based on my goal speed(time). Way too much speed for me. That is part of the reason for building to 45+mpw now. Good luck.

KC