Long run as fraction of the week
View Full Version : Long run as fraction of the week
Let's suppose that you're not training for an ultra or
marathon, but have decided to run a weekly long run of
60-90 minutes duration for your 5k-10 mile racing.
What fraction of your weekly mileage would your long run
be? Why not more? Why not less?
Even better if you have a source for your preferred fraction
in addition to 'it works for me'.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
In article <13l8ts5fs1jok0a@corp.supernews.com>,
bobg@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
> Let's suppose that you're not training for an ultra or
> marathon, but have decided to run a weekly long run of 60-90 minutes
> duration for your 5k-10 mile racing.
>
> What fraction of your weekly mileage would your long run
> be? Why not more? Why not less?
I've been told by people both on this newsgroup and elsewhere that the
long run should not be more than 50% of the weekly total.
--
13.1 Because I can
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:52:24 -0700, Michelle <michelle@michelle.org>
wrote:
>In article <13l8ts5fs1jok0a@corp.supernews.com>,
> bobg@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
>> What fraction of your weekly mileage would your long run
>> be? Why not more? Why not less?
>
>I've been told by people both on this newsgroup and elsewhere that the
>long run should not be more than 50% of the weekly total.
I've heard more like 25-33% of the weekly total, but I can't remember
where I heard that, so maybe it's a bogus statistic that just happens
to work for me.
I can't imagine getting anywhere near that 50% figure. I'd be injured
in a heartbeat.
Karen
live! vicariously!
In article <7k39l3dfku212om7q5nmtof520uuit05pu@4ax.com>,
joe positive <kcollin5@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >I've been told by people both on this newsgroup and elsewhere that
> >the long run should not be more than 50% of the weekly total.
>
> I've heard more like 25-33% of the weekly total, but I can't remember
> where I heard that, so maybe it's a bogus statistic that just happens
> to work for me.
I think Donovan told me that it should never be more than 50%; of
course, that doesn't mean it has to get that high.
> I can't imagine getting anywhere near that 50% figure. I'd be
> injured in a heartbeat.
My last week before the taper week when I was training for the Nike half
was 23 miles, ten of which was my long run. That's about 43.5%.
--
13.1 Because I can
On Dec 3, 4:39 pm, b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
> Let's suppose that you're not training for an ultra or
> marathon, but have decided to run a weekly long run of
> 60-90 minutes duration for your 5k-10 mile racing.
>
> What fraction of your weekly mileage would your long run
> be? Why not more? Why not less?
>
> Even better if you have a source for your preferred fraction
> in addition to 'it works for me'.
>
> --
> Robert Grumbinehttp://www.radix.net/~bobg/Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
> Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
> evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
> would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
" Some say that it shouldn't be longer than 20-25%. Others say 30-35%.
Still others say that it is OK to go as high as 40%. Bob Glover
suggests that it can go as high as 50%. On the other hand, Jack
Daniels says it should be limited to 25-30%. The recommendations are
all over the spectrum. "
http://www.thefinalsprint.com/2006/11/marathon-training-long-run-time-and-total-weekly-mileage/
From Runner's World
"Most experts agree that 20 to 30 percent of your weekly mileage
should be devoted to the long run, depending on your overall mileage."
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-238-244--626-0,00.html
Personally, 30% works good for me. a typical "non-marathon training"
week for me is 4 runs of 5-6 miles and a 10 mile long run.
"todd" <dredturner@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa55eb71-5f89-4173-aefc-fd2e4a41f7d1@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 3, 4:39 pm, b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
>> Let's suppose that you're not training for an ultra or
>> marathon, but have decided to run a weekly long run of
>> 60-90 minutes duration for your 5k-10 mile racing.
>>
>> What fraction of your weekly mileage would your long run
>> be? Why not more? Why not less?
>>
>> Even better if you have a source for your preferred fraction
>> in addition to 'it works for me'.
>>
>> --
>> Robert Grumbinehttp://www.radix.net/~bobg/Science faqs and amateur
>> activities notes and links.
>> Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too
>> much
>> evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than
>> they
>> would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New
>> Sciences
>
> " Some say that it shouldn't be longer than 20-25%. Others say 30-35%.
> Still others say that it is OK to go as high as 40%. Bob Glover
> suggests that it can go as high as 50%. On the other hand, Jack
> Daniels says it should be limited to 25-30%. The recommendations are
> all over the spectrum. "
>
> http://www.thefinalsprint.com/2006/11/marathon-training-long-run-time-and-total-weekly-mileage/
>
> From Runner's World
> "Most experts agree that 20 to 30 percent of your weekly mileage
> should be devoted to the long run, depending on your overall mileage."
> http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-238-244--626-0,00.html
>
> Personally, 30% works good for me. a typical "non-marathon training"
> week for me is 4 runs of 5-6 miles and a 10 mile long run.
Last week I ran 32 miles. 20 of that was my long run. ;-)
Tim
Robert Grumbine wrote:
> Let's suppose that you're not training for an ultra or
> marathon, but have decided to run a weekly long run of
> 60-90 minutes duration for your 5k-10 mile racing.
>
> What fraction of your weekly mileage would your long run
> be? Why not more? Why not less?
>
> Even better if you have a source for your preferred fraction
> in addition to 'it works for me'.
>
Judging from the repsonses so far, you might want to post what the rest
of your week looks like and what duration you're looking at for 5k-10mi
races.;) (Sorry, I don't remember what your speeds are, but they are
faster than mine.)
My knee-jerk reaction had been: "why limit your runs to 1-1.5 hrs?".
Even if I weren't training for something, I'd probably be running 1-2
hrs at a shot (45 min in yucky conditions) With some runs having more
intensity embedded in the middle. But if you're using short
warmup/cooldown and high intensity (VO2max or whatever) for your shorter
runs, you might need more recovery time or be doing more shorter runs
(doubles). Either way, I wouldn't see a long run of 1-1.5 hrs being a
substantial percent of your volume - less than 20%, I would think and
probably less than that.
Look at the duration of runs that Lydiard uses.
Dot
--
...."the doctor told me I should do one of two tings. One, if I started
to feel extreme muscle damage, I should slow down, or two, I should
train harder to avoid muscle damge in the future. I chose number two."
- Andy Jones-Wilkins (quoted in Trail Runner 49:12, Dec 2007)
joe positive <kcollin5@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
news:7k39l3dfku212om7q5nmtof520uuit05pu@4ax.com:
> I can't imagine getting anywhere near that 50% figure. I'd be injured
> in a heartbeat.
>
> Karen
>
>
Why go to all that trouble? Just take a hammer and smash yourself in the
knee.
Robert Grumbine:
> Let's suppose that you're not training for an ultra or
> marathon, but have decided to run a weekly long run of
> 60-90 minutes duration for your 5k-10 mile racing.
>
> What fraction of your weekly mileage would your long run
> be? Why not more? Why not less?
Supposing also that motivation, health, and circumstance allowed me to
train all-out for this 10k: no more than 20%, probably a bit less.
Why? Ultimately because, uh, "it works for me".
Specifically: I'd cap the run around two hours or a hair less. 90
minutes might be just as good for a 10k but 120 - when I've worked up
to it - feels like it's infusing me with more aerobic goodness. Much
longer, at least on a weekly basis, and it seems like it's breaking me
down (hence also interfering with the rest of the week's training)
more than building me up.
The long run length and weekly total volume are both based on trial
and error (most of the trials being informed by others' experiences
and not chosen totally arbitrarily...) and the numbers work out to
15-20%. Given several years' experience I wouldn't personally put
some formula first and derive the numbers from that. IMO such
formulas are more useful, when they're useful at all, for sanity-check
guidelines when one lacks the experience to know that such-and-such a
mix is sustainably good training.
> Even better if you have a source for your preferred fraction
> in addition to 'it works for me'.
Well OK, though again having listened to authorities to gather ideas
to test, and tested some of them, it's really at this point about
"what works for me." But since you asked:
- I'll cite Lydiard for the two hour long run. Though I haven't read
him in the original, I've spent enough hours reading some of his
disciples and interpreters to have *some* idea, well, of what most
people think his main points are/were.
- I'll also cite "malmo" - here's one post I found quickly via google
which speaks fairly directly to this question:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2134528 But again,
if what folks like (secondhand) Lydiard, malmo (real name George
Malley, former American record holder in various distances including
half marathon), and the Hansons said weren't pretty consistently
confirmed by my experience, I'd be citing different experts. :-)
And this fraction business seems like one of the most dubious of all
running formulas and magic numbers because, as you surely realize,
context weighs so heavily. First and foremost: how many days a week
is one training? Long run is gonna be an absolute minimum of 100, 50,
33, or 25 percent for 1 to 4 day a week runners! Second, how seasoned
is the runner, how ready for an N mile run week in week out? One of
my biases is that generally there's too little respect for the dangers
of ramping up one's long run vs. how much caution for increasing
frequency and/or total volume of running - at least if the runner has
my body. I wonder if "techguy" fell prey to this (I was concerned as
he had worked up to a 2+ hour long run, IIRC, awfully quickly on low
base mileage and about 3 runs a week while still carrying considerably
more weight than he eventually will if he sticks with the running) -
hopefully he's perfectly fine, still running, and just got tired of
the noise here.
"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5rjiluF1560q4U1@mid.individual.net...
> Last week I ran 32 miles. 20 of that was my long run. ;-)
I think the proposed percentages are mostly for injury prevention. For
example the 20-22 long run for the marathon for the mortals is a classic
line in the sand. It's not that exceeding that is bad but the numbers
show the injury rate climbs. If you have muscle system that can handle
the miles then do what works for you. I contend if you go slow and
allow yourself time to adjust, your long run can be safely higher. It
depends on your goals.
It's fairly common in the ultra world for the long run to be a major
chunk of the weekly miles. Even when I did marathons I would do long
runs of 26-28 while my weekly mileage was 45-50. Today it's not uncommon
for my long run to be 50% or more.
For those of you running 7 days a week and into the higher miles and
heavy speed, a long, long run will piss of the injury gods. I prefer a
lengthy long run and 5 days for recovery.
So Bob, what prompts the question? ;)
-Doug
On 2007-12-03, Robert Grumbine <bobg@radix.net> wrote:
> Let's suppose that you're not training for an ultra or
> marathon, but have decided to run a weekly long run of
> 60-90 minutes duration for your 5k-10 mile racing.
>
> What fraction of your weekly mileage would your long run
> be?
Not sure if this is the right question because if your long
run is only 60-90min, you will get fastest by just doing as much mileage as
possible, which would make the long run a small fraction of total mileage (-;
I suspect that the one and only reason that long runs are a small fraction of
total mileage in top runners is that they run very high total mileage (by
training twice a day). So for example, a 2-a-day runner who runs 12 times
mon-sat would need 6 runs worth of miles on Sunday to make 1/3 total mileage.
A long time on-and-off runner like yourself could probably make it 100% of
your weekly mileage and not get injured -- you just wouldn't get very fast
with that regimen. Increase total mileage by adding a few 40 minute runs
and a speed session, and before long, it's less than 50% total distance.
> Why not more?
Because the smaller the percentage, the more total mileage you're
doing (-;
It's hard to recommend specific percentages because if you're running
3x/week, your average run is 1/3 of total mileage.
> Why not less?
>
> Even better if you have a source for your preferred fraction
> in addition to 'it works for me'.
There is some evidence against doing the same thing every day.
Noakes has some discussion where he points out that very low coefficient
of variation (standard deviation divided by the mean) in training
distance is associated with injury (daily training distance ? Weekly ? can't
remember -- but you have Noakes, so take a look)
So I'd say that there's empirical evidence that says that you shouldn't
do the same thing every day. I don't know of any hard evidence that you
shouldn't make your long run 50% or more of weekly mileage.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
In article <47555cad$0$2324$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Doug Freese <dfreese@NOBShvc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:5rjiluF1560q4U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Last week I ran 32 miles. 20 of that was my long run. ;-)
>
>I think the proposed percentages are mostly for injury prevention.
One of my major interests :-)
[trim]
>So Bob, what prompts the question? ;)
The usual -- I'm looking to be ramping up my mileage and after
multiple rounds of the too much too soon, and am looking towards
guides to keep myself in check. 2007 was a much better running
year than 2006, but this still means that I only got out 2-3
days a week most of the year. You just don't get much better
with only 2 days a week. And I had very few 4s. Many outside things
interfering with running schedules.
I'm also thinking of the runners from my club's beginner's program
and what to tell them and why about structuring their weeks.
When I was training for my ultra, I was running 5 days/week and
the long could be over 50% of my weekly mileage -- both that I was
not running that many miles during the week and that I was particularly
pushing the long run as that was my major concern. For more ordinary
running, at 5 days/week, I found 33% a good figure (10 miles long
on a week of 30). But when I was in the 20-25 mpw and 3-4 days/week
it was more like 40-50%.
I think from the responses and my own experience, that it's mostly
a matter of percent of weekly mileage is not a very good guide.
Folks like joe positive out on the big miles would be doing
ultramarathons for their long runs if they used the same percent
as lower mileage types like me.
Thanks to all the folks who responded. A few more particular
comments:
todd -- thanks for the references
Dot -- my speeds are a lot different than they used to be, endurance
even more so. For current reference, 25:30 for a flat 5k --
off 5-10 mpw, no speed work to speak of, 1-3 days/week)
I limit the mileage mostly due to time. I won't be running
multiple hour+ runs per week for at least a year. Not sure
I'm going to be heading up to ultra distance ever again. I'm
trying to work out some ancillary issues which seem to be important
to my running long without injury. Gluteus medius syndrome
for one. I now feel all my harder runs (whether speed or distance)
in my lower back.
Charlie -- thanks for the refs and examples.
Donovan -- agreed about the distribution. My off-again running is a more
recent feature ... though, granted it now is 5 years of spotty.
This year, I finally backed off my urges to ramp back as quickly as
possible and moved to getting out regularly without regard for
the ramp. Relatively effective in that I did at last get out more
consistently (than the disastrous -- from running perspective -- '06).
Marriage and moving aren't the easiest things on running schedules.
Thanks for the pointer on Noakes and variation of distance.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Robert Grumbine wrote:
> In article <47555cad$0$2324$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> Doug Freese <dfreese@NOBShvc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:5rjiluF1560q4U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>Last week I ran 32 miles. 20 of that was my long run. ;-)
>>
>>I think the proposed percentages are mostly for injury prevention.
>
>
> One of my major interests :-)
>
> [trim]
>
>
>>So Bob, what prompts the question? ;)
>
>
> The usual -- I'm looking to be ramping up my mileage and after
> multiple rounds of the too much too soon, and am looking towards
> guides to keep myself in check. 2007 was a much better running
> year than 2006, but this still means that I only got out 2-3
> days a week most of the year. You just don't get much better
> with only 2 days a week. And I had very few 4s. Many outside things
> interfering with running schedules.
>
> I'm also thinking of the runners from my club's beginner's program
> and what to tell them and why about structuring their weeks.
ah, ok. That's a different perspective than what I had posted in.
>
> When I was training for my ultra, I was running 5 days/week and
> the long could be over 50% of my weekly mileage -- both that I was
> not running that many miles during the week and that I was particularly
> pushing the long run as that was my major concern. For more ordinary
> running, at 5 days/week, I found 33% a good figure (10 miles long
> on a week of 30). But when I was in the 20-25 mpw and 3-4 days/week
> it was more like 40-50%.
That's what mine have typically been. And ditto what Charlie and Donovan
said. Typically the greater frequency of running, the lower percent that
the long run is for distances / durations less than ultras, but even
some ultra runners may use low % if their regular runs are 2-3 hrs.
>
> I think from the responses and my own experience, that it's mostly
> a matter of percent of weekly mileage is not a very good guide.
> Folks like joe positive out on the big miles would be doing
> ultramarathons for their long runs if they used the same percent
> as lower mileage types like me.
That's why frequency of running and total volume matter and why I asked
my question.
>
>
> Thanks to all the folks who responded. A few more particular
> comments:
> todd -- thanks for the references
> Dot -- my speeds are a lot different than they used to be, endurance
> even more so. For current reference, 25:30 for a flat 5k --
> off 5-10 mpw, no speed work to speak of, 1-3 days/week)
> I limit the mileage mostly due to time. I won't be running
> multiple hour+ runs per week for at least a year.
Not a problem. A few things I was getting at were frequency and total
volume, knowing that you weren't a total beginner, but didn't realize
you were thinking in terms of buildup for beginners also. What I was
also getting at is how far 1-1.5 hr is relative to your distance goals
of 5k-10 miles (although not sure if you meant 10k). For me a 10-mi easy
run might take 2.5 hr on relatively flat course and 3-ish hrs on my
normal trails. And I wouldn't depend on a 1.5 hr long run for that.
Yours and most people's times would be much less than that.
BTW, I did check Lydiard's "Running to the Top" last night, and he does
have 2.5 hr long runs for 5k base training - that's running 7 days/wk,
mostly in the 1-2 hr range for regular runs. So it's still not a large
percentage. But of course you do have to build to that point. (I've
become a major Lydiard fan in the last couple years.)
The other thing I usually bring up is why pick on a 7-day week? Yes, it
makes things convenient for work, but it's not unusual to do long runs
every 2 or 3 weeks, esp. as they get longer relative to a normal week.
While my long runs at times are typically 50% or greater of 7-day
volume, I may be using a 12-day or sometimes 15-day microcycle and
they're more like 30% of that (admittedly, a benefit of retirement).
This has varied as I went from 3 day/wk to every other day to 2 on /1
off (with one of the pair being one of my key workouts, usually). 7
being a prime number, it's not a nice multiple of anything except 1 and 7.
But for new beginners, I still like the idea of some guidelines to help
them build - and some cutback weeks. When their volume is really low, an
increase might have to be more than 5-10% to be perceptible. I've
noticed some do long runs weekly when those might be less than a certain
duration, then every other week as they get longer, then every 3 wks as
they get longer still. (don't remember where I read that)
And if they're building from 30 min to 1 hr for the 1st time, I suspect
long run might start close to 33% (all same length), then gradually
become a larger percent up to 50%.
> Not sure
> I'm going to be heading up to ultra distance ever again. I'm
> trying to work out some ancillary issues which seem to be important
> to my running long without injury. Gluteus medius syndrome
> for one. I now feel all my harder runs (whether speed or distance)
> in my lower back.
Bummer.:( Have you been doing strengthening for it?
Dot
--
...."the doctor told me I should do one of two tings. One, if I started
to feel extreme muscle damage, I should slow down, or two, I should
train harder to avoid muscle damge in the future. I chose number two."
- Andy Jones-Wilkins (quoted in Trail Runner 49:12, Dec 2007)
On 2007-12-03, joe positive <kcollin5@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:52:24 -0700, Michelle <michelle@michelle.org>
> wrote:
> I can't imagine getting anywhere near that 50% figure. I'd be injured
> in a heartbeat.
I think it depends on what it's 50% of.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
In article <slrnflbcj6.oua.abuse@panix2.panix.com>,
Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
> > I can't imagine getting anywhere near that 50% figure. I'd be
> > injured in a heartbeat.
>
> I think it depends on what it's 50% of.
50% of the weekly total mileage.
--
13.1 Because I can
In article <CRh5j.17219$MJ6.6433@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:
>Robert Grumbine wrote:
[trim]
>> The usual -- I'm looking to be ramping up my mileage and after
>> multiple rounds of the too much too soon, and am looking towards
>> guides to keep myself in check. 2007 was a much better running
>> year than 2006, but this still means that I only got out 2-3
>> days a week most of the year. You just don't get much better
>> with only 2 days a week. And I had very few 4s. Many outside things
>> interfering with running schedules.
>>
>> I'm also thinking of the runners from my club's beginner's program
>> and what to tell them and why about structuring their weeks.
>
>ah, ok. That's a different perspective than what I had posted in.
>
>> When I was training for my ultra, I was running 5 days/week and
>> the long could be over 50% of my weekly mileage -- both that I was
>> not running that many miles during the week and that I was particularly
>> pushing the long run as that was my major concern. For more ordinary
>> running, at 5 days/week, I found 33% a good figure (10 miles long
>> on a week of 30). But when I was in the 20-25 mpw and 3-4 days/week
>> it was more like 40-50%.
>
>That's what mine have typically been. And ditto what Charlie and Donovan
>said. Typically the greater frequency of running, the lower percent that
>the long run is for distances / durations less than ultras, but even
>some ultra runners may use low % if their regular runs are 2-3 hrs.
>>
>> I think from the responses and my own experience, that it's mostly
>> a matter of percent of weekly mileage is not a very good guide.
>> Folks like joe positive out on the big miles would be doing
>> ultramarathons for their long runs if they used the same percent
>> as lower mileage types like me.
>
>That's why frequency of running and total volume matter and why I asked
>my question.
Yes, I was just in too many different places in asking the question.
The beginners, myself, the club folks who are putting in good weeks, ...
>> Thanks to all the folks who responded. A few more particular
>> comments:
>> todd -- thanks for the references
>> Dot -- my speeds are a lot different than they used to be, endurance
>> even more so. For current reference, 25:30 for a flat 5k --
>> off 5-10 mpw, no speed work to speak of, 1-3 days/week)
>> I limit the mileage mostly due to time. I won't be running
>> multiple hour+ runs per week for at least a year.
>
>Not a problem. A few things I was getting at were frequency and total
>volume, knowing that you weren't a total beginner, but didn't realize
>you were thinking in terms of buildup for beginners also. What I was
>also getting at is how far 1-1.5 hr is relative to your distance goals
>of 5k-10 miles (although not sure if you meant 10k). For me a 10-mi easy
>run might take 2.5 hr on relatively flat course and 3-ish hrs on my
>normal trails. And I wouldn't depend on a 1.5 hr long run for that.
>Yours and most people's times would be much less than that.
Definitely I include the 10k (and 8, 15, ...), just thinking in the
range of 5k-10 miles as opposed to 800-3000 m track work, or marathon
and more.
The 60-90 minutes indeed gets to be a question for a runner looking
at 120-150 for his 10 mile race. But it's not bad for health purposes.
I think one conclusion from the discussion is that with the longest
being around 60-90, one might want the other runs to be closer to that
range than if they're 120-180. But still keeping in mind the variance thing
from Noakes that Donovan mentioned.
>BTW, I did check Lydiard's "Running to the Top" last night, and he does
>have 2.5 hr long runs for 5k base training - that's running 7 days/wk,
>mostly in the 1-2 hr range for regular runs. So it's still not a large
>percentage. But of course you do have to build to that point. (I've
>become a major Lydiard fan in the last couple years.)
Indeed. And there's much to recommend it. I've done best in two
situations. One, from preparing for the ultra, of doing little speed
work, but getting out for more miles total and at one time. Second,
of doing relatively few miles, but high intensity on the miles I did
(short intervals mostly, no long run to speak of, and a tempo run).
Ok, third case (set my old 10k pr off this) -- few miles, little speed
work, but working on abs, shoulder, and back exercises.
>The other thing I usually bring up is why pick on a 7-day week? Yes, it
>makes things convenient for work, but it's not unusual to do long runs
>every 2 or 3 weeks, esp. as they get longer relative to a normal week.
>While my long runs at times are typically 50% or greater of 7-day
>volume, I may be using a 12-day or sometimes 15-day microcycle and
>they're more like 30% of that (admittedly, a benefit of retirement).
>This has varied as I went from 3 day/wk to every other day to 2 on /1
>off (with one of the pair being one of my key workouts, usually). 7
>being a prime number, it's not a nice multiple of anything except 1 and 7.
Yes, I found the 2 or 3 weeks a better recurrance time for my particularly
(over 2 hour) long runs. 15 days is better sub-divisible, and even
maps better to calendar months. But groups (like my club) tend to have
their group activities scheduled by the calendar week.
>But for new beginners, I still like the idea of some guidelines to help
>them build - and some cutback weeks. When their volume is really low, an
>increase might have to be more than 5-10% to be perceptible. I've
>noticed some do long runs weekly when those might be less than a certain
>duration, then every other week as they get longer, then every 3 wks as
>they get longer still. (don't remember where I read that)
>
>And if they're building from 30 min to 1 hr for the 1st time, I suspect
>long run might start close to 33% (all same length), then gradually
>become a larger percent up to 50%.
This past year was an odd group. We coaches found ourselves pushing
the runners a bit. That's never happened before; usually I'm having to
tackle them to slow down and run less. So they've been comfortable with
the 5-10% ramp, for instance, after finishing the program. We also had
persuaded them to look at time rather than distance. And 31.5 minutes is
easy enough to deal with, where it might be a pest to try to find that
distance.
>> Not sure
>> I'm going to be heading up to ultra distance ever again. I'm
>> trying to work out some ancillary issues which seem to be important
>> to my running long without injury. Gluteus medius syndrome
>> for one. I now feel all my harder runs (whether speed or distance)
>> in my lower back.
>
>Bummer.:( Have you been doing strengthening for it?
Trying. A problem has been to find some good exercises for it. I've
been doing one, and it feels like it's accomplishing nothing.
Do you know of any?
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
On 2007-12-04, Michelle <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnflbcj6.oua.abuse@panix2.panix.com>,
> Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > I can't imagine getting anywhere near that 50% figure. I'd be
>> > injured in a heartbeat.
>>
>> I think it depends on what it's 50% of.
>
> 50% of the weekly total mileage.
"weekly total mileage" is not a universal constant.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
Robert Grumbine wrote:
> In article <CRh5j.17219$MJ6.6433@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote:
>
>>Robert Grumbine wrote:
>
>
> [trim]
>
> The 60-90 minutes indeed gets to be a question for a runner looking
> at 120-150 for his 10 mile race. But it's not bad for health purposes.
> I think one conclusion from the discussion is that with the longest
> being around 60-90, one might want the other runs to be closer to that
> range than if they're 120-180. But still keeping in mind the variance thing
> from Noakes that Donovan mentioned.
I think variance is good, but that can be achieved with different types
of runs as well as with different distances / durations. As an example,
I think I did a 5mi/1:15 run one day on my flat easy trail then did
about 5 mi the next day on - outbound on herd trail working the ups,
trying not to kill myself on the downs with all the loose branches;
inbound on wide ski trails, still running the ups but easier, but
working the downs - about 1:45. Or they might have been the same
duration but different distances. Don't remember for sure - but just
looking at numbers, they were very similar. In reality, they provided
much different training stimuli.
>
>>The other thing I usually bring up is why pick on a 7-day week? Yes, it
>>makes things convenient for work, but it's not unusual to do long runs
>>every 2 or 3 weeks, esp. as they get longer relative to a normal week.
>>While my long runs at times are typically 50% or greater of 7-day
>>volume, I may be using a 12-day or sometimes 15-day microcycle and
>>they're more like 30% of that (admittedly, a benefit of retirement).
>>This has varied as I went from 3 day/wk to every other day to 2 on /1
>>off (with one of the pair being one of my key workouts, usually). 7
>>being a prime number, it's not a nice multiple of anything except 1 and 7.
>
>
> Yes, I found the 2 or 3 weeks a better recurrance time for my particularly
> (over 2 hour) long runs. 15 days is better sub-divisible, and even
> maps better to calendar months. But groups (like my club) tend to have
> their group activities scheduled by the calendar week.
I'll have to admit that retirement makes a consistent schedule easier
since I have the flexibility to adjust on a daily basis. Interestingly,
most of my meetings and volunteer activities are nights and weekends,
leaving the days to do my running - inverse of what my life used to be.
And when if we're in the middle of a nasty windstorm, I can adjust my
long run a day or two. [4-5 hrs in +4F / 30-50mph winds (probably colder
and windier on swamp where I was headed) just doesn't make a whole lot
of sense for my training purposes right now, esp. when not cold
acclimitized yet - or getting wimpier in my old age;). Short runs, yes.]
>
>
>>But for new beginners, I still like the idea of some guidelines to help
>>them build - and some cutback weeks. When their volume is really low, an
>>increase might have to be more than 5-10% to be perceptible. I've
>>noticed some do long runs weekly when those might be less than a certain
>>duration, then every other week as they get longer, then every 3 wks as
>>they get longer still. (don't remember where I read that)
>>
>>And if they're building from 30 min to 1 hr for the 1st time, I suspect
>>long run might start close to 33% (all same length), then gradually
>>become a larger percent up to 50%.
>
>
> This past year was an odd group. We coaches found ourselves pushing
> the runners a bit. That's never happened before; usually I'm having to
> tackle them to slow down and run less. So they've been comfortable with
> the 5-10% ramp, for instance, after finishing the program. We also had
> persuaded them to look at time rather than distance. And 31.5 minutes is
> easy enough to deal with, where it might be a pest to try to find that
> distance.
That's good. And if you get them running by feel, that will really help
them in the long term. Gadgets are nice as learning and logging tools,
but too many people become sooo attached to them, their brain ceases to
function. My favorite questions are what pace should my warmups or
recoveries be run at. duh.
>
>
>>>Not sure
>>> I'm going to be heading up to ultra distance ever again. I'm
>>> trying to work out some ancillary issues which seem to be important
>>> to my running long without injury. Gluteus medius syndrome
>>> for one. I now feel all my harder runs (whether speed or distance)
>>> in my lower back.
>>
>>Bummer.:( Have you been doing strengthening for it?
>
>
> Trying. A problem has been to find some good exercises for it. I've
> been doing one, and it feels like it's accomplishing nothing.
>
> Do you know of any?
I did bridge-like stuff on a stability ball for hams and butt. Lay on
back with feet on ball, then get in bridge position (lift butt) and roll
the ball back toward you with your feet. (not a good description, but
there's probably pics on web somewhere and definitely in stability ball
books)
This is the first I've heard it called "runner's squat", but I learned
something like this a single-leg balance squat - mostly for feet /
ankles/ proprioception, but just saw it suggested for piriformis
syndrome. When I had some of my hip flexor issues a few years ago, it
was also tied in with ITB, weak hams, weak butt, weak core, etc., so of
the stuff my PT gave me worked on all of those. Given the fact that
everything is connected in that core region, it probably makes sense.
http://www.easyvigour.net.nz/fitness/h_Runners_Squat.htm
http://www.easyvigour.net.nz/fitness/h_gluteus_max_piriformis.htm
When I do them, I have to extend my leg to front or back or side as far
as I can. Closing eyes while doing them is good for proprioception,
although maybe not that relevant to your concerns.
Lunges might help also.
Dot
--
...."the doctor told me I should do one of two tings. One, if I started
to feel extreme muscle damage, I should slow down, or two, I should
train harder to avoid muscle damge in the future. I chose number two."
- Andy Jones-Wilkins (quoted in Trail Runner 49:12, Dec 2007)
Michelle <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in news:michelle-
821FFC.13274504122007@news.east.cox.net:
> In article <slrnflbcj6.oua.abuse@panix2.panix.com>,
> Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > I can't imagine getting anywhere near that 50% figure. I'd be
>> > injured in a heartbeat.
>>
>> I think it depends on what it's 50% of.
>
> 50% of the weekly total mileage.
>
Oh Mike, you're so butch, I love it!
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:51:07 +0000, Robert Grumbine wrote:
> In article <47555cad$0$2324$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> Doug Freese <dfreese@NOBShvc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:5rjiluF1560q4U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Last week I ran 32 miles. 20 of that was my long run. ;-)
>>
>>I think the proposed percentages are mostly for injury prevention.
>
> One of my major interests :-)
>
> [trim]
> The usual -- I'm looking to be ramping up my mileage and after
> multiple rounds of the too much too soon, and am looking towards
> guides to keep myself in check.
I am by no means a very high mileage runner - but in the last few months I
switched from a relatively rigid schedule to a 'at least twice a week,
depending on feeling' one. The longer your long run is compared to what
you are used to, the more recovery you'll need. Looking at my logs, it
seems like I needed a couple of extra recovery days everytime I indulged
in a harder/longer long run than previously. I seemed to get a similar
effect from accumulated fatigue when doing many sub-maximal days close to
each other.
I guess my point is that the % of miles ran in 'the long run' is useless.
If you can run 20km with difficulty, then doing that and another 3
sessions of 5-10k each might be too much.
There's another statistic though, which I seem to recall. For
long-distance athletes, a 20% of volume dedicated to faster paced work
seems to be beneficial.
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
