The primary feedback I received from coaches, when building out training plans for the 100/100 challenge, is that a 30 minute minimum run is too long. That's my entire point. They felt that a shorter minimum qualifying run would be better toward the end goal of building run durability and fitness. It's why I brought it up.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Wait!!! I just noticed some words that I think I missed before



You mean coaches are building training plans specific to this nonsense?

I thought 100/100 was the training plan ... to build a mileage base for Spring or Summer road racing - at least that's how *I* use it

I must be missing something, then; or doing this all wrong

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Well, that's the thing: they wrote training plans for people participating in the challenge to do exactly what you say. And the biggest piece of feedback they gave was: the minimum run should be shorter in order to keep people to stick with the plan, and come out the other side in better run shape.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

I get it....kinda.

But, the minimum isn't 30min. 1+29 = 30 over 2 days. or 15+15 or, or, or....its only a min of 30min if you run every damn day. There's a lot of leeway in planning when using rule #12 for runs shorter than 30min.

Mon = 30
Tue = 10
Wed = 20
Fri = 30

that's credit for 3 x 30m runs in 4 days. with a 10min and a 20min run. rinse and repeat....good enough for 75 runs in 100 days (Bronze right?). Or 1000x alternatives. THAT's my point. The only thing that makes 30min seem "too high" is expecting it EVERY SINGLE DAY.

ETA: again, there is NOTHING in the rules or the challenge ethos that says that ZEROs are not-allowed....or that you MUST run 100 times in 100 days. So, someone writing a plan or having an expectation to run NO-LESS-THAN 30m every single day for 100 days straight...just isn't thinking creatively.

OK, I'm caught up now, thanks

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

If you call it "100/100", and you write a training plan for it...yeah...there's the thought that you should be looking to hit 100 runs in 100 days.

Look, whatever. I give up.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

My issue with the 3 mi/30min minimum is you have to have a pretty solid running base to ramp up to a daily run of this size on top of any other training plan you are already doing.

In my case I have a plan thats 20-30 mpw over 3 days/week. If I want to add the other 4 days to join this challenge I now have to run an additional 12 miles in that week which is more than a 50% increase over my current fitness.

I could take advantage of the rollover rule to get myself to 5 runs a week with my current plan but even an additional 2 days/6 miles each week on my rest days is an increase of 20-35%.

I voted for 2 miles/20 min but actually like the runeveryday.com suggestion of a mile/10 min better

you have 18 days to bump the mileage up. this challenge is an offseason fitness maintenance challenge (which during this time it is much more difficult to bike and swim outside) and not meant to cater to someone's specific program. 3/30 should be kept for legacy reasons.

personally, i maybe out this year on purpose. If my focus is improving my mile time, I need to avoid the mileage trap.

Thanks for articulating this.....i bet most coaches opposed to lettng ther athletes participate don't even know the rules and you can do 60x30 min "qualifiers" or 75x30, or 80x30, or 100x30 where the 30's can all be broken up as desired with days of zero running or minimal running.

No one is forcing anyone to get 100x30min qualfier blocks....100x20 min is perfectly OK it just results in less 100/100 credit

i think the challenge is super fun. but i see it more attracting for athletes that dont have a coach. I just dont see the 30min making good sence physiologically for most athletes if we train well on the swim and bike. So over the past many years, every time one of my athlete ask me about the 100/100, i always say bad idea. it s could be tons of fun but it s not the best for there developpement. To make sence in my mind, i would need it to be 20min with all the same rules. Because if you enter the challenge..you have to go for the 100 run total...not 90, or 80 or 70.


So yeah, i think it s awesome, it dosnt work well for coached athletes in my perspective. With all this said, i m in for this year...i terribly need to rebuild routine, motivation, lose weight, have fun and take on a challenge. So it s game on!

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

Wow. I'm perplexed by that response, from that person.

Why?

1. Why is 20m better than 30m?
2. Why do you HAVE to go for 100? Not 90, 80 or 70?

I ask these questions as an athlete who has done 100+. And, an athlete who has done less, on purpose.

Why can't you counsel your athletes to use the challenge as a framework for "more better" without being stupid? Who's failing is that?

I fully recognize that when I do a 30m challenge run, just to get a number that:

1. It's a stupid human trick... My STUPID human trick
2. It's counter to my plan.
3. That's not a fault of the challenge... It's MINE.
4. I could do just as well in the challenge, with a different approach.
5. I might be fitter by skipping the stupid human trick.

That's what we are trying to fix.

The goal of anything, really, is to look at past data and feedback from people who tend to have the most knowledge around here to improve Slowtwitch. That's true of our forum, our front page, and our challenges.

If our goal is to improve participation in the 100/100 Challenge, and we have one of our top coaches on the forum explicitly telling you that they tell athletes to skip the challenge, doesn't that tell you something about it? Especially when we are all aligned on the end goal of trying to improve run fitness by the end?

And to yours and Dev's point...you think people are going to do runs that don't count towards the challenge? Have you not met your fellow endurance athlete?

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

it only does not well for coached athletes, because the coaches (guys like YOU) don't read the rules. You can design them a fine program inside 100/100 with day off, short runs, long runs etc etc etc. They may end up at 70/100 the way the challenge counts the runs you give them, but it is your fault if you cannot read the rules and design a program for the athlete, or it is the fault of the athlete for ignoring. But most of you don't read the rules to figure out how to use them best.

But your point in bold, you can have that and fit inside the challenge. You or your athletes maybe won't get to 100 or should not get to 100. I will use challenge to get to an overall mileage load for the 100 days. I don't yet know how that breaks down because my work life dictates a lot and my primary sports will be swimming and skiing....so between work, ski conditions, pool times, once all that shake our short runs will be slotted into remaining time and energy with a rough overall weekly target for run volume and a rough daily target for exercise volume.

But no one is forcing anyone to do 100 runs and no one is forcing anyone to HAVE to do 30 min daily.

i know the rule as well as you do. i look into each of them as i understand very well you dont have to run every day and can add or do multiple etc. i know the rules as well as you do......

where i might see things differently is, you dont enter a 100/100 if your not going for 100? if you aim at 70...lets call it a 70/100 and then, it s a lot easier to fit into a training program but when a athelte comes to me with this idea...they want 100 runs. And at that, like many other coach have mention... i dont like the 30min concept for this. it s my opinion and it dosnt stop me on a personal level from taking part in it.

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

because the challenge is 100/100. not 70/100. if i want a athlete to be coming out of this better, with with all the manipulation of the rules and get to 100, i need a shorter duration of the lengh of the run.

i dont really have athelte coming to me asking me to reach 70-80-90..... they all want 100.

i advice them and we do our on frequency running challenge out of slowtwitch. i still think this challenge is awesome...but it dosnt fit what i beleive is best for my group.

this is just one opinion.....

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

Dev, come on. That's bullshit.

All of the coaches I have received feedback from know the rules inside and out.

Athletes all ask them to get them 100 runs in 100 days. All of the coaches speak about how the current minimum is not something worthwhile or beneficial to their programs. So they tell them not to participate.

Why? Because you and I both know that if an athlete goes into a challenge like this, they are seeking the completion. 70/100 is not good enough. That's the whole thing.

If this were titled something else, or just a general Slowtwitch run focused block? Sure. However many runs and have your coach design your program around that. But if you say "I want into the challenge, and these are the rules of the challenge?" You kind of are either all in, or you're all out.

This isn't just a Jonny thing. Every single respected coach on the forum that I've touched base with on this was in agreement. It's the reason I've been as vocal as I have been about this.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Well that is YOUR fault if you cannot explain to them that there are levels lower than 100/100 and it is OK to do far less. If you play golf you don't NEED to do all 18 holes on any given day. It is perfectly OK to do less on any given day. If you play 18 every day and get fired from your job or your wife, that's your fault, not the fault of Golf.

The challenge needs a name and if you or your athletes can't read under the name what all tools it provides, that's not the fault of the challenge. But this is 2021 and I suppose most people don't read more than twitter tweet in length.

If your unprepared athlete come to you and says they want 100/100 you can always giive them 80/100 or 60/100 or whatever you think they are ready for.

But let's get real....most coaches don't want to turn over control to the athlete (part of that is because the athlete will screw themselves over and blame the coach). So most coaches want tight control over what the athlete does and even if you give them 80/100 most will go beyond what you prescribe, some will lie and get sucked in so you (coaches) don't want that to happen so you don't want them to go near it because of the group effect.

The group effect is exactly what this exists for. We virtually end up with a training group and push each other.....this is outside the well curated training groups under a coach....of course they don't like it. It is your competition because if an athlete can have fun and get fit with a random online group, that can be a threat.

There are probably far more members on the forum who don't have coach [either tri or running], than those that do

If a coach says "That 3/30 threshold is too much for you; I don't think you should do it" I'm sure there's a non-coached Runner or two [and this IS a challenge for Runners, after all, isn't it?] who would be more than willing to take that spot to rebuild routine, motivation, lose weight, have fun and take on a challenge - not necessarily achieving 100/100, but to enjoy themselves along the way, with a nice virtual training group, full of online smack-talk & hijinks and get as close as they can within the 100 days [my PB is 86/100, set a couple Summers ago]

So, I see a path to leave the 3/30 minimum and grow participation, even if the coached athletes decline

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Not specifically directed toward Dev.

Holy guacamole! This year's "air your grievances" thread is truly living up to its name. I am flabbergasted that so much animus has built up over the course of this discussion. On the one hand, I'm extremely pleased to see so many people engaging in a potentially productive discussion about how to train over the off season (at least, in the northern hemisphere); on the other, I'm disappointed at the degree of non-charitable (see Quine, the principle of charity) readings here. It's like people are going out of their way to misrepresent each other.

My experience: When I did my first 100/100, I did not expect to reach 100 runs. I just assumed I would hit something like 60 or 70. I surprised myself, and, as I mentioned in my previous post, I was a stronger runner by the end. What I really enjoyed was the challenge itself -- not whether I accomplished it to the fullest extent. I got outside every single day; it didn't matter whether it was snowing or not. I loved how it simplified my attitude toward running. There was never a question about if I should run today; it was only about when should I run. As the weeks went on, my body toughened up, and for the first time in years, I didn't get catch a cold or flu. For the record, I did get caught up in the ranking and ran too much (well over 100).

The next year was pretty much the same. I assumed that something would prevent me from running every day, so I expected to hit somewhere between 80-100 runs. I explicitly told myself that I would take time off if I felt it necessary -- which is definitely easier said than done. This was also the year that I was training for a big bike event in late spring, and I noticed that running every day wasn't actually conducive to achieving this goal. By the end, I was in great shape, but not great biking shape. It was at this point that I started to take to heart what Dev and Slowman have been saying all along: There is no need to push things; do what you can without jeopardizing your next workout and/or overarching goal. Since my third 100/100 took place during the pandemic, I knew I could devoted most of my training to just running, so I just kept running as often as I could.

My personal insights: When this thread first opened, I actually wanted to post (above all for myself) that I would take days off. I have other events I am training for in 2022, and I don't want to overtax my body. If I happen to make all 100, great; if not, that's okay too. And I realize what I just described is a bit of "do as I say" and "not as I do." I understand the Challenge to be about motivation, accountability, and getting your butt out there. To support this interpretation, I submit the thread that accompanies the Challenge each time. People are sharing their positive experiences, pictures, as well as hardships and setbacks. And even these negative experiences point to the communal nature of this Challenge. People pick themselves up and try to continue, or they say, "next year will be better."

I grasp and appreciate the two positions vigorously being promoted. Should the Challenge be accessible to as many as possible? Yes. Should everyone feel compelled to achieve 100 runs in 100 days? Nope. And if they do, then perhaps we should attempt to counter the blind pursuit of this goal. Remember, there are plenty of fantastic athletes who don't make it each year: sometimes life gets in the way, and sometimes you just have more important goals on the horizon. But there is always next year.

These things should not be considered mutually exclusive.

Ciao,
Flemish

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...alf%20assed#p1051716

I think I am all squared away for this. I created an account on Starva and linked it to the challenge…I think. Anyway, I am not going to be having a coach for this and am just going to use a simple approach of trying to run every day. I think I can get to 80 given things that occur for me during this time like holidays, travel, hunting, miserable weather or I guess weather that I am not willing to tough out, etc.

Clarification in the rules, please: "Runs must separated by at least 1 hour to count as multiple sessions."

Is the 1-hour separation from the *start* of the run or the *end* of the run? For example, can I do a 3-mile/30-minute run, wait 30 minutes after I finish and then hobble off another 3 miler to count as two runs? Or do I need to wait an hour after I *finish* run No. 1 before starting run No. 2?

This discussion has been great -- I appreciate all the coaches chiming with solid advice. Not that I'm gonna follow it: I like the 100/100 Challenge not because it helps me get faster or builds endurance, but because it's an endurance *challenge.* Whether it's an Ironman, an ultra, gravel race or something else, I like challenge of something difficult yet rewarding. It may not be the smartest thing to do, but, really neither is Ironman. (By the way, I did 116 runs last year and PR'ed in my Ironman run. Was there a connection? Who knows.)

Happy 3-milers to all ...

I think it's a 60-minute gap between the end of one and start of the next [but I'm not a Commissioner]

We're not doing a Backyard Ultra here, where you go off at the top of each hour

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

RandMart is right. The 60-minute period is between the end of one run and the beginning of the next.

Ciao