Running 100+ mile weeks

not sure what kind of advice people will give you.  but your logs are empty.  how much have you been running at this point and normally? 

100 miles per week / 400 a month is a pretty decent chunk.  i know a couple of girls on the track team and they run about 70-80 mpw.  usually they break it down from what i understand.  say 5-6 miles in the morning, 7-8 at night.  1-2 a week will be a long run 12+ miles.  i don't think any of them ever ran say a consistent 15 miles per day or at least that is how i understood it.

the men on their team do run 100 mile weeks but that includes 0 time on anything else.  also we are talking a university team and they ran long distances for years. 

Edited by trix 2010-12-27 3:24 PM

Sounds like a lot of injury risk just for some "bragging rights".

Very cool if you can do it, but not really something I would advise.  Good luck though.

When I was younger in my late teens, I was a an OK distance runner with a 5k pb of close to 15:00. I ran a few weeks in the 80 to 90 mile range and what I noticed was that things started to break down for me at that point. My guess is that this has to do with biomechanics and your bodies ability to recovery from the micro-trauma of each run. Things just start to pile up and then things start to go wrong.

The only people who run 100 miles week regularly and can truly handle it for extended periods often and benefit from it are the bio-mechanically gifted and typically these are national and international level distance runners.

What are your goals with this?

So you're bumping up 35 "ish" miles for a week?   Why?  I think the biggest thing you might accomplish is a couple month break from running due to injury.

Its just to see if I can do it, no bragging rights, no medals, just personal enjoyment and time spent running.   Also thinking of running on various terrain: threadmill, concrete, trail, snow, etc.

Edited by chicagosurfer 2010-12-27 4:16 PM

It might not sound like it, but a 35ish mile increase is huge and could do some serious damage. If your goal is to just see if you can do it, you need to decide if it's worth not being able to run for awhile. While you may be fine, you may not be. I would suggest building up to a 100 mile week if it's that important to you. That way you will be properly trained and reap the benefits of the training as opposed to a crash course. At the end of the day it's your call, but I'd warn you to be smart. If you do just go for it, run on dirt/trails as much as possible. Drew

I pretty much did as follows when I did it 39000 moons ago.

Mon  am) 5mi     pm) 10mi
Tue   am) 5mi     pm) 10mi
Wed  am) 5mi     pm) 10mi
Thu   am) 5mi     pm) 10mi
Fri     am) 5mi     pm) 10mi
Sat    am)  20mi
Sun   5mi

Dude!  Follow my New Years Resolution.

Think before you act.

Is it worth the risk of an injury to check it off your list of accomplishments?
Yes?  Then do it.
No? Then don't do it.

Looking forward to reading your blog about how you feel each day.

No reason why you couldn't get there, but it sounds dangerous to bump your mileage up in one big step.  Do most of the mileage 'easy'.

You're asking the question in the wrong forum.

Go to marathon forums, and you'll find quite a number of pure marathoners who run 100+ miles per week.

I've 2 separate 100 mile weeks with an 80 and a 90 in between. Was averaging about 80/wk for the cycle, and hit the 100 just for bragging rights.

The bragging rights are cool, but aside from that, I wasn't too impressed with the results or the difficulty. Running 100mpw is time consuming, but actually not too hard since it will invariably all be at aerobic pace.

Risk of injury is substantial, though, if you're not already at 70+mpw. I wouldn't do it as a triathlete. 

IMO this is way too much mileage and as others have stated, an injury waiting to happen.  The days of logging high mileage like the 70's-80's is over and there are numerous elite athletes who have seen significant gaines using the less is more approach......and regards to triathlon training where you are training two other disciplines!

I did it earlier this year. I ran 13 times and my longest run was about 12 miles. I think the most I ran was about 18 miles in a day. However, I had been regularly running 80+ so it wasn't a big jump. It's in my logs in the Febraury/March time period. Within a month of logging a 100+ week I had some nice race improvements/PRs.

Want to check out what a high mileage runner does? Read this blog.
http://antonkrupicka.blogspot.com/

Running 100+ miles in a week once = stunt.
Running 100+ miles in a week twice = dumb.
Running 100+ miles in a week for 6 months = training.

Doing it once may not injure you; it would depend on how hard you run those 100 miles. If you do everything ridiculously easy, you can pull it off. If you want to do it to say you did it, then sure, why not? I doubt you will see much in the way of improvement from one week of training, regardless of what that training is. If you made it repeatable, then you would really see benefits.

I agree this is probably not the best forum to ask such a question, as running 100+ miles in a week is something that most dedicated (and by "dedicated" I mean those who do nothing but run) runners won't ever do; it takes up a fair chunk of time.

I would beg to differ, In fact a lot of people would argue that the resurgence of American marathon times as of late ie. Hall,Ritz,Meb,Sell etc. is due to the fact that they are getting back into high mileage instead of the "less is more" take on running. Now as far as training for a triathlon obviously you have to make some sacrafices to fit in the other two disciplines.

Tell this to the African runners. I think they would disagree.

You may disagree, but 100 miles/week is pretty much standard training for world class marathon runners.

What elite athletes are you talking about? What distances are they running/racing?

I completely agree. High mileage training is a staple for most elite distance runners, from the 5k on up to the marathon (and beyond).

Pretty ambitious... good luck on your endeavor..

no advice but: MAN, the running store is going to love you..

Whatever you do, you'll need to increase your Guinness consumption in lock-step with the increased running miles! ;-)

It's a rare month when Running Times doesn't have at least one article about a runner who routinely logs 100+ mile weeks. While it's not common for triathletes to run that much, it's not at all uncommon for runners.

Interesting timing. I read this thread yesterday and thought the OP was crazy, but to each his own.

I have found my running has not improved in the last year. So I decided  to have a chat with my 80 year father who used to be a decent runner.

I remembered when he first BQ'd at 3:20 and I remember his last 2:45 Boston. He went from 3:20 to under 3:00 in 3 years and 2:45 2 years later.

I asked him for the first time this morning what his secret was. It was quite simple.  100+ miles per week. His minimum distance was 15 miles per run, all done at 6:30 to 7min per mile. He would run at 75% of max HR. No HR monitors back then. Run, stop and take your pulse. The occasional Fartlek and track now and then.

I asked him what he thought about long slow run, tempo....bla bla bla and he said BS, minimum 15 miles runs, 75% of Max HR : simple.

This was the first time I spoke to my father about training and was surprised at his answers. I remember him running a lot, but I never imagined 100+ miles per week. I remember my mother being pissed at him, the sweaty clothes and lots of running shoes. But i was 15 at the time, so your dad's running is not the most important thing in your life.

PS : he also had double knee replacement last year.

marcag,


While your dads approach may not have been completely the best plan, the princeaples are there, run the higher mileage, along with some fast work.

There are some coaches out there that to advocate all mileage done in single runs, (so you'll see a lot of 10-15 milers in there), while many others want it split up more.





To the OP, do you have any reason to want to do this aside from saying you did? I'd take a serious look at how much being able to keep training is worth to you

Maybe not 'the best plan', but you can't argue with the results.  3:20 to 2:45 in 5 years at 50 years old isn't all that bad.