Marathon/Ultra training program, rest weeks?

In article <u5Ubd.57$TU5.34@trndny06>,

Tony qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com said:

I've read in several different running books about taking a rest week every
few weeks, but I've never seen a marathon training program with
substantially reduced mileage weeks. In designing my training program for
next year (Jan to Sept for now), I'm thinking about doing the longer runs
every 3 weeks, as I did this year, and then putting in a greatly reduced
mileage week in after the long run.

I always seem to need a big rest week sooner or later. I either get sick or
have to cut my activities way back because of dead legs, and it's always
unplanned. I'm still playing with percentages, and I'm not sure how much to
cut the mileage of rest weeks. I'm thinking of ramping my average mileage
up to about 55mpw, with peak weeks of about 70, and rest weeks during that
time about 35mpw. In this incarnation of the plan, it would take 14 weeks
to reach 40mpw average, and 23 weeks to reach 50mpw. Of course this could
be adapted to a rest week every 4th week or whatever. The rest week concept
seems to be a common theme, but why don't more people do it? Any thoughts
would be appreciated.

I think quite a few people do it, much the way you describe it.
The weekly log looks something like: ran, ran, ran, ran, injured, ran, ran,
ran, injured. If you don't put in the recovery week yourself,
injury will put one in for you sooner or later. That was how I learned
early on that I need to cut back every 4th or 5th week. If I tried
to continue a ramp up for a 5th week, I'd wind up in recovery. (Running
log was _very_ helpful about this.)

As to why more programs don't show it ... depends on what you've been
looking at, I guess. I suspect that very many of the plans are programs
to get you to the marathon/ultra as soon as possible. As such, they
don't put in the cut-back weeks, since doing so would make the program
'too long'.

For me, where the longest runs still involve a fair amount of
experimentation, it'd be a bad idea for the long run to be the
end of the cycle. That makes it too easy to do stupid (or at
least unintelligent) things w.r.t. the long run and mask the
error with the following easy week. I did best when my long run
was the start of a cycle. But that's me; just a notion for
your consideration.

Your reduced weeks do seem quite reduced. iirc, a more
typical suggestion is 20-30%, so from your 55 mpw typical,
a cut back to 40-45. If you're doing the ramp up well, then
the cut back needn't be drastic to be effective.

--
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

Tony said:

The rest week concept
seems to be a common theme, but why don't more people do it? Any thoughts
would be appreciated.

Can you name any experienced runners that don't? I think even streakers
may have lower mileage weeks.

I agree with Bob G's comment:

Quoted message said:

I suspect that very many of the plans are programs
to get you to the marathon/ultra as soon as possible. As such, they
don't put in the cut-back weeks, since doing so would make the program
'too long'.

And as Bob G. also pointed out, those that don't plan for recovery
week(s), usually end up with the injury in there.

Most schedules that I've looked at (relatively few compared with most
folks, and most that I looked at were shorter distance) seemed to ignore
basic principles - and they definitely didn't take field and snow
seasons into account, which is why I shifted away from those in my first
year. They also lacked specificity for the types of running / races that
I enjoy.

One thing I've noticed is that trail and ultra training are a lot more
free form than the standard road-running schedules of varying distances
- to allow for specificity and adjusting your recovery to what works for
you. Everybody has different weaknesses / strengths that need to be
dealt with in training.

Dot

--
"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

Robert Grumbine wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

In article <u5Ubd.57$TU5.34@trndny06>,

Tony qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com said:

I've read in several different running books about taking a rest week

every

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

few weeks, but I've never seen a marathon training program with
substantially reduced mileage weeks. In designing my training program for
next year (Jan to Sept for now), I'm thinking about doing the longer runs
every 3 weeks, as I did this year, and then putting in a greatly reduced
mileage week in after the long run.

I always seem to need a big rest week sooner or later. I either get sick

or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have to cut my activities way back because of dead legs, and it's always
unplanned. I'm still playing with percentages, and I'm not sure how much

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cut the mileage of rest weeks. I'm thinking of ramping my average mileage
up to about 55mpw, with peak weeks of about 70, and rest weeks during that
time about 35mpw. In this incarnation of the plan, it would take 14 weeks
to reach 40mpw average, and 23 weeks to reach 50mpw. Of course this could
be adapted to a rest week every 4th week or whatever. The rest week

concept

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

seems to be a common theme, but why don't more people do it? Any thoughts
would be appreciated.

I think quite a few people do it, much the way you describe it.
The weekly log looks something like: ran, ran, ran, ran, injured, ran, ran,
ran, injured. If you don't put in the recovery week yourself,
injury will put one in for you sooner or later. That was how I learned
early on that I need to cut back every 4th or 5th week. If I tried
to continue a ramp up for a 5th week, I'd wind up in recovery. (Running
log was _very_ helpful about this.)

As to why more programs don't show it ... depends on what you've been
looking at, I guess. I suspect that very many of the plans are programs
to get you to the marathon/ultra as soon as possible. As such, they
don't put in the cut-back weeks, since doing so would make the program
'too long'.

The one's I've googled and seen in books all seem to show some cut-back
weeks, though most seem minimally cut back if at all.

Quoted message said:

For me, where the longest runs still involve a fair amount of
experimentation, it'd be a bad idea for the long run to be the
end of the cycle. That makes it too easy to do stupid (or at
least unintelligent) things w.r.t. the long run and mask the
error with the following easy week. I did best when my long run
was the start of a cycle. But that's me; just a notion for
your consideration.

While I don't blow out my legs on long runs - I always do them slow - I seem
to cut back naturally the week after the longs ones. Just curious, what
kind of long run mistakes are you referring to? lol, maybe I've been
making such mistakes all along.

Quoted message said:

Your reduced weeks do seem quite reduced. iirc, a more
typical suggestion is 20-30%, so from your 55 mpw typical,
a cut back to 40-45. If you're doing the ramp up well, then
the cut back needn't be drastic to be effective.

Yes, this is the thing I'm trying to figure out - how far to cut back. It
may be taking the hard/easy volume principle to an extreme, but probably I
would increase my cross-training activities during those weeks. I just
think it might be worth experimenting with. The extra running-specifity
rest might boost the gains made from the forthcoming weeks. It also might
make the entire running experience more enjoyable, another goal of mine.
Thanks for your thoughts.

- Tony

Quoted message said:

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur

activities notes and links.

Quoted message said:

Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too

much

Quoted message said:

evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than

they

Quoted message said:

would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New

Sciences

Dot wrote in message
<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Tony said:

The rest week concept
seems to be a common theme, but why don't more people do it? Any thoughts
would be appreciated.

Can you name any experienced runners that don't? I think even streakers
may have lower mileage weeks.

You're right, but the cut-backs I've seen of most schedules, including those
of most of the consistent "training week" posters, hardly constitute what I
would call a rest week. And I note that some of those training week posts
reference injuries and often a rush to get back to full training weeks
ASAP. Am I missing something?

Quoted message said:

I agree with Bob G's comment:

Quoted message said:

I suspect that very many of the plans are programs
to get you to the marathon/ultra as soon as possible. As such, they
don't put in the cut-back weeks, since doing so would make the program
'too long'.

And as Bob G. also pointed out, those that don't plan for recovery
week(s), usually end up with the injury in there.

Most schedules that I've looked at (relatively few compared with most
folks, and most that I looked at were shorter distance) seemed to ignore
basic principles - and they definitely didn't take field and snow
seasons into account, which is why I shifted away from those in my first
year. They also lacked specificity for the types of running / races that
I enjoy.

One thing I've noticed is that trail and ultra training are a lot more
free form than the standard road-running schedules of varying distances
- to allow for specificity and adjusting your recovery to what works for
you. Everybody has different weaknesses / strengths that need to be
dealt with in training.

Dot

Thanks for your ideas. Yeah it seems ultra people all have differing
approaches, and this is part of what goes into my thinking. The extra long
runs (seem to) require extra rest. I'm planning a 50k, a 50 mile, and a
marathon next year, and I want more training volume, with allowance for rest
after longer runs. I just can't think it would be that different from
marathon training, which seems to only allow real rest during the taper
(that is if you don't get sick or injured before that).

- Tony

Quoted message said:

I've never seen a marathon training program with

substantially reduced mileage weeks.
_

isn't that because most programs are 18 weeks long & centered on ramping up to
a crescendo? perhaps a week of substantially reduced mileage does not fit in
w/an 18 week ramp.

Quoted message said:

In designing my training program for

next year (Jan to Sept for now),
___

a 32+ week training program for an M? you're asking for burn out...

Quoted message said:

dead legs

methinks overtraining + insufficient nutrition = dead legs. my interpretation
of deadlegs is connected more so to insufficient muscle strength (protein in
your deit) and less so to insufficient engergy (fats & carb) stores.

my 2 cents says its preventatively prudent to consume at minimum .75g of
protein / pound of your weight daily...if you're going to be doing 50,60, 70+
miles per week..just to adaquately fuel your muscles. (i'm doing a 1:1 ratio
now in trying to ramp up for an M...but I have a lot of muscle mass to push).

imo this 32+ week training program of yours is excessive for an M. don't know
if its what ultramen do...i'm clueless there...

goodluck

Tony said:

I've read in several different running books about taking a rest week every
few weeks, but I've never seen a marathon training program with
substantially reduced mileage weeks.

I wonder why ?

Quoted message said:

In designing my training program for
next year (Jan to Sept for now), I'm thinking about doing the longer runs
every 3 weeks, as I did this year, and then putting in a greatly reduced
mileage week in after the long run.

If you like.

Quoted message said:

I always seem to need a big rest week sooner or later.

IMO, that's possibly a sign that you're working too hard in the other weeks.

Consistency counts for a lot.

Quoted message said:

I either get sick or have to cut my activities way back because of dead
legs, and it's always unplanned.

You have previously argued that your approach to training, where you use
infrequent, hard sessions instead of frequent, easy sessions, provides
you with better recovery. IMO, the above makes the case for reviewing this,
instead of adopting inconsistency as a training philosophy.

Quoted message said:

I'm still playing with percentages, and I'm not sure how much to
cut the mileage of rest weeks. I'm thinking of ramping my average mileage
up to about 55mpw, with peak weeks of about 70, and rest weeks during that
time about 35mpw.

Why not consistently do 55, and then you wouldn't have to do the 70 mile
peak weeks ? Sure, you might argue that you can't adapt to 55 mile weeks.
But if you are not at the point where a 55 mile week is dead easy, then a
70 mile week will crush you like a bug.

Moreover, you offer no plausible motivation for this method of training. What
training principle are you appealing to ?

The training principle I would appeal to is that gradual chronic stimulus
produces adaptions (whereas sudden acute stimulus produces injury!)

Quoted message said:

In this incarnation of the plan, it would take 14 weeks
to reach 40mpw average, and 23 weeks to reach 50mpw. Of course this could
be adapted to a rest week every 4th week or whatever. The rest week concept
seems to be a common theme, but why don't more people do it?

The reason it is usually not *scheduled* is because it's not based on sound
training principles.

I sometimes have "rest weeks" were I run say 10 less miles than in a typical
week (usually if I'm feeling a little dead-legged). Even a modest cutback
suffices to bring back my running legs. If you are highly adapted, that's
about all that should be necessary.

Quoted message said:

26 70.2 52.7 2% 28%

What are you doing now ? If you're doing 20 miles per week and you hope to
get to 70 in 6 months, you're asking for trouble IMO.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Robert Grumbine said:

I think quite a few people do it, much the way you describe it.
The weekly log looks something like: ran, ran, ran, ran, injured, ran, ran,
ran, injured.

Some people may be smart enough to back off slightly prior to injury.
Or some might be smarter still and train at a load that doesn't result in the
need to back off. But testing your limits will probably result in the need to
back off somewhere or other.

I've posted my logs for this year here. They read as a very consistent and
steady buildup of milage, with a few minor cutbacks, and some tapers, but
certainly not scheduled recovery weeks. I don't see a good argument for the
case that *scheduled* recovery weeks are any better than just reducing
overall training load.

Quoted message said:

If you don't put in the recovery week yourself,
injury will put one in for you sooner or later.

But the problem is, where to put it in ?

This is where the problem lies. It's hard to know in advance when you're
going to be able to do more milage, how quickly you'll adapt to the training
load, etc. Some of these things depend on external factors (work, commitments,
rest) that you can't predict upfront.

Preempting overtraining requires more than just scheduling a recovery week,
it requires careful monitoring for signs of overwork, and backing off when
necessary. We can set targets for training loads, and make predictions about
our levels of adaption, but IMO the adjustments on the order of +- 10 miles
need to be approached with some flexibility, as opposed to scheduled upfront.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Dot dot.h@#duh?att.net said:

And as Bob G. also pointed out, those that don't plan for recovery
week(s), usually end up with the injury in there.

Still uninjured for this year. Consistent milage, high milage, recovery
weeks added on an as-needed basis.

If you're doing 10-20 miles a week on average, do what you like, if probably
won't matter. But you can't avoid having to improvise if you're doing
substantial milage.

The argument I have against *scheduled* recovery weeks is that it goes
against the training principle of adaption to chronic (and not acute)
stress. Scheduling reduced training weeks has what advantage over simply
training less ?

Quoted message said:

Most schedules that I've looked at (relatively few compared with most
folks, and most that I looked at were shorter distance) seemed to ignore
basic principles -

Which principles ?

Quoted message said:

One thing I've noticed is that trail and ultra training are a lot more
free form than the standard road-running schedules of varying distances
- to allow for specificity and adjusting your recovery to what works for
you.

Yep! Individual variation is one of the key reasons that recovery weeks are
hard to schedule. Even writing a schedule for an individual, recover
requirements are unpredictable and one often needs to improvise.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Tony said:

Dot wrote in message

Quoted message said:

You're right, but the cut-backs I've seen of most schedules, including those
of most of the consistent "training week" posters, hardly constitute what I
would call a rest week. And I note that some of those training week posts
reference injuries and often a rush to get back to full training weeks
ASAP. Am I missing something?

Chronic vs acute stimulus.

You improve because there is a constant training load.

You don't respond to individual training sessions. It is the overall training
load over time that produces the improvements. When you have a stimulus like
milage that offers gradual long term gains, high local variation in training
load isn't appropriate. You're just increasing risk (with the high peaks,
which increase risks assocaited with acute stimulus) without adding anything
to the mean load.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Lanceandrew wrote in message
<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

isn't that because most programs are 18 weeks long & centered on ramping up

to

Quoted message said:

a crescendo? perhaps a week of substantially reduced mileage does not fit

in

Quoted message said:

w/an 18 week ramp.

Quoted message said:

In designing my training program for

next year (Jan to Sept for now),
___

a 32+ week training program for an M? you're asking for burn out...

Actually it's not designed just for one race, and that's exactly why I want
to put in rest weeks, to avoid getting burned out, and/or injured.

Quoted message said:

goodluck

Thanks, Tony

Tony' qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com said:

Current tentative plan:
wk mpw 6wkMA MA% mpw%

....snip...

Quoted message said:

40 55.0 54.5 -1% 55%

So, 40. As in WEEK 40. I can't even begin to get my mind round the idea
of a 40 week training schedule, except maybe for a really big ultra, and
even then I'd stop at 30 weeks, with 24 being more likely.

But 40 weeks for a marathon, if you're not a beginner, seems enormous.

For example, I use 12 week marathon schedules, 8 week HM and 10k
schedules and 2 week "regeneration" cycles. The "rule" is that you can
mix'n'match as you like but each 8/12 week cycle must be followed by a
two week rest/regeneration cycle.

During those cycles, you do no long VO2 intervals, no LT, no hills and
long runs are limited to 1h-1h15m max.

Another point, you're only mentioning distance and not intensity. Some
of my hardest weeks don't have high mileage, because they have more of
the shorter but more intense workouts.

Tony' qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com said:

Actually it's not designed just for one race, and that's exactly why I want
to put in rest weeks, to avoid getting burned out, and/or injured.

Post us the schedule again with those target races marked (and their
distances). Directly after the races, if they are true targets, and not
just tune-ups, would seem a natural place to put a two-week regeneration
cycle.

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Tony said:

I've read in several different running books about taking a rest week

every

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

few weeks, but I've never seen a marathon training program with
substantially reduced mileage weeks.

I wonder why ?

It's possible that the dogma, along with the need for people who are
obsessed to constantly push themselves, prevented any substantial number of
people from trying it. As you yourself concede, rest weeks are necessary
sometimes, and it may be as you say that attempting to schedule them is
fruitless, but it may also be that there is great benefit to planning
substantial rest weeks for people training for ultras who do long runs much
longer than even marathoners. Whether that means every 3 week or 4 weeks
and how substantial a rest week is something that I'm trying to figure out.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In designing my training program for
next year (Jan to Sept for now), I'm thinking about doing the longer runs
every 3 weeks, as I did this year, and then putting in a greatly reduced
mileage week in after the long run.

If you like.

Quoted message said:

I always seem to need a big rest week sooner or later.

IMO, that's possibly a sign that you're working too hard in the other

weeks.

Quoted message said:

Consistency counts for a lot.

Quoted message said:

I either get sick or have to cut my activities way back because of dead
legs, and it's always unplanned.

You also said something similar, that you take rest weeks as needed. I'm
not talking about major illness or inability to run; I'm talking about
listening to my body and adapting my schedule accordingly.

Quoted message said:

You have previously argued that your approach to training, where you use
infrequent, hard sessions instead of frequent, easy sessions, provides
you with better recovery. IMO, the above makes the case for reviewing this,
instead of adopting inconsistency as a training philosophy.

Actually I don't believe that I said I do infrequent "hard" sessions. Most
of my runs this year have been the same pace as my long runs, about 20-30
bpm under LT, with some occasional tempo runs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm still playing with percentages, and I'm not sure how much to
cut the mileage of rest weeks. I'm thinking of ramping my average

mileage

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

up to about 55mpw, with peak weeks of about 70, and rest weeks during

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

time about 35mpw.

Why not consistently do 55, and then you wouldn't have to do the 70 mile
peak weeks ? Sure, you might argue that you can't adapt to 55 mile weeks.
But if you are not at the point where a 55 mile week is dead easy, then a
70 mile week will crush you like a bug.

I believe I could adapt to 55 mile weeks. I don't believe I could adapt to
consistent 70 mile weeks very easily, but I do believe I could adapt to do
peak weeks of 70 miles with the long run being a larger than normal
percentage of it.

Quoted message said:

Moreover, you offer no plausible motivation for this method of training.

What

Quoted message said:

training principle are you appealing to ?

The training principle I would appeal to is that gradual chronic stimulus
produces adaptions (whereas sudden acute stimulus produces injury!)

I take your point that the deep cut in mpw I've outlined is extreme, and I
haven't by any means settled on that yet. Having said that, I wouldn't
consider what I've outlined to be an acute stimulus. I may decide to do 3
weeks of relatively the same mileage, perhaps one of them spiked by the long
run, with one rest week. You may do fine on your curent training schedule,
but perhaps when you're older you might understand why some people who can
run ultra distances might want to take more rest and have a training
schedule that appears to you to be acute and inconsistent.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In this incarnation of the plan, it would take 14 weeks
to reach 40mpw average, and 23 weeks to reach 50mpw. Of course this

could

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be adapted to a rest week every 4th week or whatever. The rest week

concept

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

seems to be a common theme, but why don't more people do it?

The reason it is usually not *scheduled* is because it's not based on sound
training principles.

Stress, recovery, and supercompensation are not sound training principles?

Quoted message said:

I sometimes have "rest weeks" were I run say 10 less miles than in a

typical

Quoted message said:

week (usually if I'm feeling a little dead-legged). Even a modest cutback
suffices to bring back my running legs. If you are highly adapted, that's
about all that should be necessary.

Quoted message said:

26 70.2 52.7 2% 28%

What are you doing now ? If you're doing 20 miles per week and you hope to
get to 70 in 6 months, you're asking for trouble IMO.

In my summer buildup to my 50k, my peak weeks were probably closer to the
equivalent of 40 road miles, but because I trained mostly on trails I don't
know exactly. That plus bicycling. I'm not fixed on 70 mile weeks - I
would go by the 55mpw average - or on the exact program I've outlined, or
that I would try to take a rest week every 3rd week; it might be every 4th
or 5th week. I'm designing the beginning of my training program for next
year, but it will never be inflexible or unchanging. Based on my
unconvential training this year you probably doubted that I could run 50k.
I won't say I was competative in that race, but I far exceeded my own
expectations, and finished a bit sore in the quads but in pretty good
condition overall.

- Tony

Quoted message said:

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
snip

Quoted message said:

This is where the problem lies. It's hard to know in advance when you're
going to be able to do more milage, how quickly you'll adapt to the

training

Quoted message said:

load, etc. Some of these things depend on external factors (work,

commitments,

Quoted message said:

rest) that you can't predict upfront.

Preempting overtraining requires more than just scheduling a recovery week,
it requires careful monitoring for signs of overwork, and backing off when
necessary. We can set targets for training loads, and make predictions

about

Quoted message said:

our levels of adaption, but IMO the adjustments on the order of +- 10 miles
need to be approached with some flexibility, as opposed to scheduled

upfront.

Quoted message said:

I agree with you to a point that you have to adapt as you go to whatever
schedule you're following, and that by listening to your body you can
usually avoid most major injury and illness setbacks.

- Tony

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Tony said:

Dot wrote in message

Quoted message said:

You're right, but the cut-backs I've seen of most schedules, including

those

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of most of the consistent "training week" posters, hardly constitute what

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

would call a rest week. And I note that some of those training week

posts

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

reference injuries and often a rush to get back to full training weeks
ASAP. Am I missing something?

Chronic vs acute stimulus.

You improve because there is a constant training load.

You don't respond to individual training sessions. It is the overall

training

Quoted message said:

load over time that produces the improvements. When you have a stimulus

like

Quoted message said:

milage that offers gradual long term gains, high local variation in

training

Quoted message said:

load isn't appropriate. You're just increasing risk (with the high peaks,
which increase risks assocaited with acute stimulus) without adding

anything

Quoted message said:

to the mean load.

Ok that was a softball question just for you Donovan 🙂 The concept I'm
going by is stress / recovery / super-compensation. You're arguing that any
breaks will weaken that stress. You don't run the same distance every day.
How can a break that allows for ample recovery and super-compensation be all
bad? This is done with easy days in almost everyone's schedule. Surely
you've seen that sometimes your training after a rest is of a higher
quality. After the break week you come back the next 2 weeks (or perhaps
the next 3 or 4 weeks) and your training training quality goes up a little
bit. Training hard for 2 weeks or more can't be considered an "individual
training session" as you stated above.

The one acute spike in the plan on the table is the long run making it a
70mpw instead of a 55mpw. It might be a better idea to back off the mileage
a couple of days before the long run to balance it out more. I didn't make
up the concept of rest weeks - I've seen it in several running books, and in
some marathon training programs to a lesser degree. I don't know if other
runners or ultrarunners do it or to what degree, and that's why I posted
this question in r.r.

I would argue that a person who can run 30mpw could do 3 ten mile runs or 6
five mile runs with little difference, though with a slightly greater risk
of injury, sure. You don't do the same mileage every day and most people
don't, so why would it be so critically important to do the same weekly
mileage. If you took the monthly average of the plan I'm examining, it
would be relatively consistent.

- Tony

Tony said:

Ok that was a softball question just for you Donovan 🙂 The concept I'm
going by is stress / recovery / super-compensation.

But why over such a short period of time ?

Quoted message said:

You're arguing that any breaks will weaken that stress.

Not quite. Prolonged breaks will reduce that stress.

Quoted message said:

You don't run the same distance every day.

I try to avoid having more variation than necessary. Two reasons I have
variation are (1) to put a rest day the day before a hard speed workout or
a race, and (2) because long runs are greater than average milage.
(3) I can survive the long run days by timing them on the weekend, so that I
can sleep for a lot of that day. If I had no weekends, I probably wouldn't be
able to do more than 15 miles on any given day. I can't take a week off work
every time the schedule calls for a 100 mile week.

Quoted message said:

How can a break that allows for ample recovery and super-compensation be all
bad?

Supercompensation is a risky strategy, because you're temporarily overreaching.

I don't see a rationale for frequently "supercompensating" in this manner. A
beginner will improve rapidly without resorting to such risky techniques. A
more advanced trainee could load up for 12 weeks or so in a cycle, and then
sharpen.

For me to do your training program, I would have to do 100 miles on my heavier
weeks. Now I suppose that may be possible, but it's not something I'm going to
attempt, because it strikes me as a very risky proposition. On the other hand,
building up to 80 miles per week over a 12 week period and then tapering would
be quite feasible.

Now I'm going to move one of your questions further up (because it makes my
reply flow better):

Quoted message said:

You don't do the same mileage every day and most people
don't, so why would it be so critically important to do the same weekly
mileage.

The reason I don't do this is because I would need to do a 100 mile week
every few weeks to do this. I don't believe I can safely pull this off. I
believe I would at the very least be extremely tired by the end of the week.

Quoted message said:

If you took the monthly average of the plan I'm examining, it
would be relatively consistent.

You can screw yourself up in less than a month if you try hard enough.

Quoted message said:

This is done with easy days in almost everyone's schedule. Surely

No. An easy day does not necessarily mean a reduction in training volume.

Quoted message said:

you've seen that sometimes your training after a rest is of a higher
quality. After the break week you come back the next 2 weeks (or perhaps
the next 3 or 4 weeks) and your training training quality goes up a little
bit. Training hard for 2 weeks or more can't be considered an "individual
training session" as you stated above.

Yes, but the same principal applies to quality training sessions too -- it's
not enough to have one "improved quality" training session -- you need half
a dozen or so in a row to make substantial gains. So you either need your
"cycle" to be either shorter than the period between two quality workouts,
or longer than the total duration of the "quality phase" (maybe 6 weeks or
so).

Quoted message said:

a couple of days before the long run to balance it out more. I didn't make
up the concept of rest weeks - I've seen it in several running books, and in
some marathon training programs to a lesser degree. I don't know if other

I'm sure you have seen it, I just haven't seen anyone who's half-serious
actually do this. That doesn't prove that you can't do them, but it certainly
demonstrates that you don't need to.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

steve common wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Tony' qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com said:

Current tentative plan:
wk mpw 6wkMA MA% mpw%

...snip...

Quoted message said:

40 55.0 54.5 -1% 55%

So, 40. As in WEEK 40. I can't even begin to get my mind round the idea
of a 40 week training schedule, except maybe for a really big ultra, and
even then I'd stop at 30 weeks, with 24 being more likely.

So far it's a just an attempt to outline where I want to get my base mileage
up to. The first race could occur 10 or 11 weeks into it, a 50k, the
other's are yet to be determined, but will probably be the vermont 50 mile
in late Sept, and a late Fall marathon. The main goal for next year is a 50
miles trail race.

Quoted message said:

But 40 weeks for a marathon, if you're not a beginner, seems enormous.

For example, I use 12 week marathon schedules, 8 week HM and 10k
schedules and 2 week "regeneration" cycles. The "rule" is that you can
mix'n'match as you like but each 8/12 week cycle must be followed by a
two week rest/regeneration cycle.

During those cycles, you do no long VO2 intervals, no LT, no hills and
long runs are limited to 1h-1h15m max.

When I fine tune it, yes, I will allow for a taper and, as you call it, a
regeneration period surrounding each major race.

Quoted message said:

Another point, you're only mentioning distance and not intensity. Some
of my hardest weeks don't have high mileage, because they have more of
the shorter but more intense workouts.

It will include some hill work, tempo runs, fartlek, LT, and VO2 work;
though not everything all at once. Those elements will be put in according
to the finalized race schedule. Right now I'm thinking about base mileage
and rest weeks. When you've completed your 8/12 week cycle and 2 week
regeneration, what do you then do until the next cycle? In other words how
substantially does your base go down if at all?

- Tony

Tony said:

Quoted message said:

I wonder why ?

It's possible that the dogma, along with the need for people who are
obsessed to constantly push themselves, prevented any substantial number of
people from trying it.

I think you meant "consistently". Otherwise, you're saying that it's just
another way to do less training.

Quoted message said:

As you yourself concede, rest weeks are necessary
sometimes, and it may be as you say that attempting to schedule them is
fruitless, but it may also be that there is great benefit to planning
substantial rest weeks for people training for ultras who do long runs much
longer than even marathoners. Whether that means every 3 week or 4 weeks
and how substantial a rest week is something that I'm trying to figure out.

If you're doing bi-weekly long runs, then a weekly schedule no-longer makes
sense -- you really need a bi-weekly schedule.

Within the constraints dictated by what you're training for, I'd argue for
minimal short-term variation in training volume.

Quoted message said:

You also said something similar, that you take rest weeks as needed. I'm
not talking about major illness or inability to run; I'm talking about
listening to my body and adapting my schedule accordingly.

Yep.

Quoted message said:

I believe I could adapt to 55 mile weeks. I don't believe I could adapt to
consistent 70 mile weeks very easily, but I do believe I could adapt to do
peak weeks of 70 miles with the long run being a larger than normal
percentage of it.

If you could adapt to 55 mile weeks, you could probably get by without
scheduling rest weeks on a 70 mile peek.

Quoted message said:

I take your point that the deep cut in mpw I've outlined is extreme, and I
haven't by any means settled on that yet. Having said that, I wouldn't
consider what I've outlined to be an acute stimulus. I may decide to do 3

It's a stimulus that exceeds the level of adaption to chronic stimulus.

Quoted message said:

weeks of relatively the same mileage, perhaps one of them spiked by the long
run, with one rest week.

If you put the long run the day before the "rest week", it's actually pretty
close to my minmimum variation idea, you're just putting the long run in
a funny place to rig the books.

Quoted message said:

You may do fine on your curent training schedule,
but perhaps when you're older

Cut it out, you're not old. We've already been over this.

Quoted message said:

you might understand why some people who can
run ultra distances might want to take more rest and have a training
schedule that appears to you to be acute and inconsistent.

No, I understand that people who do biweekly long runs can't operate on
a weekly schedule. I'd argue against using weekly milage as a guiding
principle for these people.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The reason it is usually not *scheduled* is because it's not based on sound
training principles.

Stress, recovery, and supercompensation are not sound training principles?

In the other post, I argued that you misapplied supercompensation.

Quoted message said:

know exactly. That plus bicycling. I'm not fixed on 70 mile weeks - I
would go by the 55mpw average - or on the exact program I've outlined, or

FWIW, I'd recommend going in with a 55 mile base, then peak at 70, then ramp
down. Unless you get 6 or so back to back weeks of >55, I doubt you'll get
much in terms of supercompensation.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Tony said:

Ok that was a softball question just for you Donovan 🙂 The concept I'm
going by is stress / recovery / super-compensation.

But why over such a short period of time ?

Primarily because the long run about every 3 weeks seems to work well for me
thus far. Other than that it's just the first rest-week cycle I've been
looking at.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're arguing that any breaks will weaken that stress.

Not quite. Prolonged breaks will reduce that stress.

The breaks would be after the long run, to allow for full recovery, and
would end with the medium-long run the following weekend, so that's a 5 or 6
day reduction of mostly mid-week mileage. It would allow for a mental break
and possibly some extra cross-training as well, both of which I consider
important in a long term program.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You don't run the same distance every day.

I try to avoid having more variation than necessary. Two reasons I have
variation are (1) to put a rest day the day before a hard speed workout or
a race, and (2) because long runs are greater than average milage.
(3) I can survive the long run days by timing them on the weekend, so that

I

Quoted message said:

can sleep for a lot of that day. If I had no weekends, I probably wouldn't

be

Quoted message said:

able to do more than 15 miles on any given day. I can't take a week off

work

Quoted message said:

every time the schedule calls for a 100 mile week.

How do you figure 100 mile weeks under the plan being considered? If your
70mpw average was substituted, that would give a 3 week cycle of 70/89/46 or
70/85/50 in % terms and absolute terms respectively. I haven't settled on
what the best eccentricity would be, if any.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How can a break that allows for ample recovery and super-compensation be

all

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bad?

Supercompensation is a risky strategy, because you're temporarily

overreaching.

You're temporarily reaching until the next time you peak, yes, but once
you've done that a few times your body can get used to that. The extent of
the peak does not dramatically increase above the previous peak. The same
was true of my every-3rd-week long runs this year, and they worked
fantastically well to prepare me for 50k.

Quoted message said:

I don't see a rationale for frequently "supercompensating" in this manner.

A

Quoted message said:

beginner will improve rapidly without resorting to such risky techniques. A
more advanced trainee could load up for 12 weeks or so in a cycle, and then
sharpen.

For me to do your training program, I would have to do 100 miles on my

heavier

Quoted message said:

weeks. Now I suppose that may be possible, but it's not something I'm going

to

Quoted message said:

attempt, because it strikes me as a very risky proposition. On the other

hand,

Quoted message said:

building up to 80 miles per week over a 12 week period and then tapering

would

Quoted message said:

be quite feasible.

Now I'm going to move one of your questions further up (because it makes my
reply flow better):

Quoted message said:

You don't do the same mileage every day and most people
don't, so why would it be so critically important to do the same weekly
mileage.

The reason I don't do this is because I would need to do a 100 mile week
every few weeks to do this. I don't believe I can safely pull this off. I
believe I would at the very least be extremely tired by the end of the

week.

My point is that people do variations of daily mileage, and usually don't
run the same amount every day. So why would weeks of varying volume be such
a bad thing? I concede that the extent of the variation can be argued.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you took the monthly average of the plan I'm examining, it
would be relatively consistent.

You can screw yourself up in less than a month if you try hard enough.

Yes, and many people have screwed themselves up by too obsessively following
their weekly mpw quotas.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is done with easy days in almost everyone's schedule. Surely

No. An easy day does not necessarily mean a reduction in training volume.

Agreed, not necessarily.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you've seen that sometimes your training after a rest is of a higher
quality. After the break week you come back the next 2 weeks (or perhaps
the next 3 or 4 weeks) and your training training quality goes up a

little

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bit. Training hard for 2 weeks or more can't be considered an

"individual

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

training session" as you stated above.

Yes, but the same principal applies to quality training sessions too --

it's

Quoted message said:

not enough to have one "improved quality" training session -- you need half
a dozen or so in a row to make substantial gains. So you either need your
"cycle" to be either shorter than the period between two quality workouts,
or longer than the total duration of the "quality phase" (maybe 6 weeks or
so).

You probably have a point here; I don't know about this as much as you. This
might be a reason to go longer between rest weeks, particularly in a
"quality phase". It could also be that during that time you simply continue
your quality work during the reduced volume "rest week", whereas in between
race schedules, you might not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a couple of days before the long run to balance it out more. I didn't

make

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

up the concept of rest weeks - I've seen it in several running books, and

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

some marathon training programs to a lesser degree. I don't know if

other

Quoted message said:

I'm sure you have seen it, I just haven't seen anyone who's half-serious
actually do this. That doesn't prove that you can't do them, but it

certainly

Quoted message said:

demonstrates that you don't need to.

Thanks for your thoughts and critique.

-Tony