Direct OP quote: "My challenge is for you to run 200 miles per month, every month for the next four months."


Pretty sure that's the forest.

Nope, you are still missing his point. Don't focus on the number and just focus on the overall message he is conveying.

---

https://www.miles4matt.run/

This is funny too. I actually think you are the one confusing the point. The OP was talking about running 16x50 to improve you as a "triathlete". Not advice for a "straight marathoner." To confuse matters more, care to guess how a "straight marathoner" would do at an IM? Not very well. In the circle I hang out with there is a reason people are only "straight marathoners". Can't swim or bike worth a crap.

Just realized you are the OP. Even better.

And running 200 miles per month for 4 months is the opposite of "Balance" (your word.)

Running that much.......it's only 4 months......it is not a big deal. It is not the end of the world. But the dividends paid of that kind of run focus are huge.

"Balance" is way over used here. It is a myth. It has its place after you get proficient in your running. The point here is to dedicate to running. a lot of people are at a plateau in running because they never get past 25-30 MPW. Do something different = Run More......more than a few ST Stud Warriors know this is true.

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

So I guess you missed my post where I ran 40+ miles a week for 16 weeks (vs. my lifetime average of 25) - and had a huge half mary PR.

I didn't run 200 miles, but I did run significantly more, consistently over any "long" period than I had done ever before.

Not directed at you, but simply a continuation.


You have two choices - suck or don't suck.

If you don't mind sucking - ignore brian's advice; and stop telling people it's a bad idea.

If you wish to not suck - this is a very good path to begin the journey of not sucking.

There is a reason why the overwhelming majority of triathletes are crappy runners. What's your point?

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta Twitter

That's the point, some have missed. I love how people take the literal wording and don't grasp the concept behind it.

(shoulder shrug) But what do I know?

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta Twitter

No I'm not the OP.

---

https://www.miles4matt.run/

We're all guilty of missing the point from time to time, but only some of us realize we missed the point and correct things.

I got it, guys, especially this part:


That, my friends, hit home ... and timely too, since I had just finally cracked my v2.0 10 Mile goal of 1:30 at Broad Street Run last weekend*, cutting about a minute per mile off last year. I didn't do NEARLY 50 Miles a week, but I did [slightly] longer runs and closer to daily than the previous year






* "v2.0" is what I call my second running career, after I essentially quit between 1999 and 2006; none of my PRs from the 20th Century count, hence the v2.0

---

"Isn't RandMart the old punk rock dude who had the crazy ex? Then this post checks out"
I've learned from my mistakes, and I'm sure I could repeat them --- exactly

Bottom Line - If you have a weakness at some point you need to do a focus on that area. You may need to decrease your workouts in the other areas, you may not, it depneds on how YOU RESPOND. I started out as a very decent biker. Spent a most of 6 months doing swims 5 days a week and guess what I may not be fast but I don't suck at swimming any more. Took Desert Dude's old challenge to heart and used the BarryP plan to do it. Now I may not be fast but I don't suck at running anymore.

Balance is great if you already are good at each event. If not you might consider forgetting balance and fix the problem. If you have an event that you really don't like training for - that would probably be a good candidate for a focus period. I found I did not like the things that I was not good & successful at. My 2 cents.

---

http://bigmikega.wordpress.com

"To confuse matters more, care to guess how a "straight marathoner" would do at an IM? Not very well."

I think where you are confused is w/regards to short term vs. long term benefits of what DD is suggesting. At the end of a training period such as he is advocating here, you will likely be a faster runner but a slower triathlete then you had been previously. However, once you reduce your run mileage and ramp up swim/bike, the run will not slow down and you will quickly return to your previous levels in the swim/bike. For me, it took 4 weeks after taking 4 months completely off from swim/bike for both of them to get back to their previous levels. I had chopped 1 minute/mile off my half marathon pace during that 5 month total stretch.

I think you'll find that if you took a survey of the faster triathlete runners, at some point in their lives most of them have done some higher mileage running, if you want to call 50 mpw higher mileage.

^^^^this^^^

I reduced my other workouts but did't eliminate them. Cut 1:20 per mile of my 70.3 half mary time. Set Distance (14:30) & Run (17:00) PR in my first 70.3 this year.

---

http://bigmikega.wordpress.com

I get what's he's trying to say, but the original post has a serious case of slowtwitchitis. Bold, blanket statement to grab attention that is cure all for everyone only to back track and it's not about specific mileage and to use his statement as a theme and to confuse the matter even worse to pull in the training plan of straight marathoners/sub elites when his original post only addressed triathletes and then to direct it as evidence for the point end of AG triathletes. LOL, wut? If the point is to run more, then say that, or say triathletes need to be doing "x" mileage for this distance or "x" mileage for that distance. I still stand by 50x16 straight is too much mileage for the vast majority of AGers. Injury city. Just my opinion as I think everyone has personal balance equation that needs solving for true maximum performance and to avoid junk mileage and injuries. I also think the older you get like 40, 45, 50, 55 etc. the more complex the running equation gets. It's not just about miles.

Having done multiple marathons and IMs the reason people run slow in an IM is two fold: (i) they just biked 112 miles, and most importantly (ii) it's usually really hot at 1-2pm when you start your marathon. To say all triathletes suck at running is simply foolish. To break 4 hours in an IM marathon means you need to be at least a 3:30 solo mary runner. I bet less than half the field at most IMs can do that. Of the half that can, about half of that group will break 4 hours becuase they paced correctly. That's the math at most IMs. In CdA it was 320/2183 under 4 hours (happen to have numbers in front of me as I was #289 in that group). IMSG was even less percentage wise. Have any friends run Boston this year? How'd they do with the heat (and with fresh legs)? I've got n=6 in my group alone with an average delta of +35 minutes alone.

Given that Brian coaches, I think he probably has a bit bigger sample size to go on the says 50mpw isn't that big of a deal

---

http://www.desotosport.com
Wife’s new business —> http://www.lnzcustomdesign.com
Formerly Draketriathlon

"To break 4 hours in an IM marathon means you need to be at least a 3:30 solo mary runner. I bet less than half the field at most IMs can do that."

So...I guess we agree that most triathletes suck at running then?

So here is the million dollar question- once you do this kind of training block and dial the run back down at the end to reemphasize bike and swim, what pecent of miles from your run focus must you keep in place to maintain these hard earned gains? I know the perfect answer is 100, but what should us working stiffs, family-types be aiming for?

---

"It never gets easier, you just go faster."
-Greg LeMond

Ding ding ding

---

http://www.desotosport.com
Wife’s new business —> http://www.lnzcustomdesign.com
Formerly Draketriathlon

I would hardly put a 3:30 in the suck category. So what solo mary time does not suck? The slowest you would allow. Curious.

So you train like or near what the OP suggested and given your comments in this thread must not "suck" as a runner?

Well an open marathon at 3:30 would age grade you to top 40 percent or so, yet that's top 20 percent run at ironman. In other other words over 80 percent of the runners in an ironman are in the bottom 60 percent of age graded results for a marathon. I would say that's petty bad.

---

http://www.desotosport.com
Wife’s new business —> http://www.lnzcustomdesign.com
Formerly Draketriathlon

"I would hardly put a 3:30 in the suck category."

I totally agree with you that 3:30 is not a bad time for someone who thinks 50 mpw is a lot of mileage. With that, you are on your own since you seem determined to miss the point no matter how many people try and explain it to you.

Oh gosh I was just waiting for this comment. I'm impressed you didn't pull up my Disney marathon run time and go haha you suck, thats just poor ST form. No I do suck at running, which gives me more than enough authority to comment on how much triathletes suck as a group. I wish I didn't suck at running because that would put me well into low two hours in an oly and probably sub 2 if I spent time swimming too. I haven't trained as the OP has suggested because for the last three years i've been in school to get into med school and now I'm in med school so full on training really has not been on my mind. However I have dropped tris now and am only going to run. I'll be up to 50mpw by mid june so I'll keep this thread in mind and say how much it helped in oct. Baring my knee acting up again, I don't have a PCL so sometimes I have issues.


Edit: Just to add, anyone who ever asks a question like that is on a last ditch effort to make a point, because essentially you have thrown out 80+ percent of coaches in all sports opinions.

---

http://www.desotosport.com
Wife’s new business —> http://www.lnzcustomdesign.com
Formerly Draketriathlon