What about a 2000 mile challenge?

Bally8

I love the 1000 mile challenge. Have never come even near to completing it but I'm always in awe of those guys and gals who get to the 1000 miles by the summer and totally blown away by those who get there in March/April. It's part of the reason why I check it so often.

I was thinking it would be great if a second thread was set up for when people start reaching the 1000 miles and they cross over on to the 2000 mile table, maybe even a third for those aiming for 3000!! Every year I wonder how those at the top who complete the 1000 miles are doing. Maybe Im just too nosy:D

What do ye think?

RayCun

I think the challenge benefits from having a finish line. It's something for the better runners to race to, and a target for the weaker runners to achieve.

menoscemo

Bally8 wrote: »

I love the 1000 mile challenge. Have never come even near to completing it but I'm always in awe of those guys and gals who get to the 1000 miles by the summer and totally blown away by those who get there in March/April. It's part of the reason why I check it so often.

I was thinking it would be great if a second thread was set up for when people start reaching the 1000 miles and they cross over on to the 2000 mile table, maybe even a third for those aiming for 3000!! Every year I wonder how those at the top who complete the 1000 miles are doing. Maybe Im just too nosy:D

What do ye think?

I like your idea because 2000 miles is a target of mine this year.

Condo131

I'm game anyway. To keep posts reasonably short, there should be an entry barrier of 1,000 miles.

I've no problem with the 2,000 mile challenge this year. I won't do 3,000 again - I got too focused on the target last year and lost the run of myself.
....and then I was gutted when Mick Rice pipped me to take top of the table. :mad::(

Oisin11178

Thats why im not in the 1000 mile thread this year. People get obsessed with it.

MisterDrak

Oisin11178 wrote: »

Thats why im not in the 1000 mile thread this year. People get obsessed with it.

Feeling a bit that way myself. I find i'm doing an extra loop or couple of miles simply to move up 1-2 places on the list, rather than focusing on the session purpose...

That being said 100 down... 900 to go.....

ecoli

Was thinking about this myself. Why not have it as part of the original thread once people hit a thousand they are awarded a colour (like the SCR thread template) and different colours at each of the milestones?

I do agree that people can get obsessed with it alright but as long as they keep the overall training goal in mind and don't ramp the mileage up too quickly I dont see it as a problem as mileage is one thing that i find people under estimate and alot of people could see major benefits from bring up the mileage

ecoli

MisterDrak wrote: »

Feeling a bit that way myself. I find i'm doing an extra loop or couple of miles simply to move up 1-2 places on the list, rather than focusing on the session purpose...

That being said 100 down... 900 to go.....

As long as you keep them easy there is no reason why not to add them if you have the extra time. I agree with not taking away from your sessions but if you have the time for a little extra mileage and the body is okay with it why not add few miles here and there. In the long run will have great benefits as long as you are smart about it

RoyMcC

Like Oisin & MrDrak I think the 1000 mile thread has its place. It is a great motivator, but I found that it started taking precedence over my main training goals. It was encouraging junk miles rather than quality. Which is why I'm also keeping away from it this year.

Not sure what a 2000 mile thread would achieve as those high(er) achievers involved surely have better targets in mind than maximising miles.

ecoli

RoyMcC wrote: »

Like Oisin & MrDrak I think the 1000 mile thread has its place. It is a great motivator, but I found that it started taking precedence over my main training goals. It was encouraging junk miles rather than quality. Which is why I'm also keeping away from it this year.

Not sure what a 2000 mile thread would achieve as those high(er) achievers involved surely have better targets in mind than maximising miles.

What would you consider junk miles though?

Best quote i have heard in a long while "Junk mileage is, by definition, mileage completed while high on heroin"

While the comment was flippant highlights the fact that the idea of junk mileage is something which as crept in to modern society to try and justify low mileage training. Personally i feel that mileage can be sub optimal but ultimately all mileage is beneficial unless the speed is not letting you allow your body to recovery from hard workouts

Again it may not benefit higher mileage guys as motivation but if it acts as a marker to show how one can develop their own performance by increasing the mileage for the rest it is beneficial overall as a thread.

Sorry for the rant but think the 90s low mileage distance revolution has resulted in such a decline in the Western Worlds performances over the last while that we need to get away from them notions and back to the training technique which has resulted improving more athletes performances over the last 100 years than any other method: mileage

Not saying that everyone should start running 100 mile weeks from now on but they should be gradually increasing their volume over ime and getting away from the notion that 40 miles a week is enough to perform to their best for a marathon

Rant over:D

BeepBeep67

I was sent the attached Marathon Survey of the athletes below the other day, gives a high level overview into their training, touching on coaching, mileage, sessions and pre and race day nutrition and while I know they were elites, it's shows you need to get the mileage in.

Miles per week in build up before best marathon
Charlie Spedding
95 to 100
Paul Evans
110
Hugh Jones
Up to 130
Mike Gratton
115 to 140
Steve Brace
90 to 115
Bill Adcocks
100-125

RoyMcC

Absolutely take that point ecoli. But I was simply plodding around doing slow miles which...just makes you a slow runner. If high(er) mileage incorporates intelligent tempo changes, and is in the context of making you a faster runner overall then fine. I'm not sure that the 1000 mile thread makes anyone a better runner per se.

But junk miles are sure better than no miles

ecoli

RoyMcC wrote: »

Absolutely take that point ecoli. But I was simply plodding around doing slow miles which...just makes you a slow runner. If high(er) mileage incorporates intelligent tempo changes, and is in the context of making you a faster runner overall then fine. I'm not sure that the 1000 mile thread makes anyone a better runner per se.

But junk miles are sure better than no miles

I can see your point regarding this that their needs to be correlation

More easy miles> more volume in workouts - faster stronger runner

I think though it may act as a bit of a guide to show people thinking of stepping up to longer distances the work they need to be putting in to be realistic regarding their targets. So often we see people looking to at how little they can get away with running to "run" a marathon or they ignore the importance of mileage for intervals or other specific aspects of training. I think if nothing else the thread can show statistical proof of the importance of mileage which in itself can be a lesson alot of people coming to the forum would learn alot from

Mac Cormaic

RoyMcC wrote: »

Absolutely take that point ecoli. But I was simply plodding around doing slow miles which...just makes you a slow runner. If high(er) mileage incorporates intelligent tempo changes, and is in the context of making you a faster runner overall then fine. I'm not sure that the 1000 mile thread makes anyone a better runner per se.

But junk miles are sure better than no miles

Has there every been a study done on the times of people who do a 100 miles a week just jogging about? Like if a person was running a 100 miles a week would it naturally improve their times in short distances, even if they did little enough speed-drills or even tempo runs??? Would there be a natural increase in speed and strength just running 100 miles alone, on a weekly basis?

ecoli

Mac Cormaic wrote: »

Has there every been a study done on the times of people who do a 100 miles a week just jogging about? Like if a person was running a 100 miles a week would it naturally improve their times in short distances, even if they did little enough speed-drills or even tempo runs??? Would there be a natural increase in speed and strength just running 100 miles alone, on a weekly basis?

Tim Noakes did study on this and the research show slow steady improvement over time (3 year period) this was compared to the inclusion of anaerobic work which show dramatic improvement over a short period which would not be sustained for more than a 6-8 week period known as "peaking". After this time the athlete slumped back down to a slight level of improvement from the original state of fitness.
Basically on just miles you will see improvement but not at the same level you would by adding variation in your training

Gringo78

Mac Cormaic wrote: »

Has there every been a study done on the times of people who do a 100 miles a week just jogging about? Like if a person was running a 100 miles a week would it naturally improve their times in short distances, even if they did little enough speed-drills or even tempo runs??? Would there be a natural increase in speed and strength just running 100 miles alone, on a weekly basis?

I read some article before that said above 70mpw of slow running fatigues your slow twitch muscle fibres enough that your fast twitch fibres begin to be relied upon for slow running this making you a faster runner.

RoyMcC

Gringo78 wrote: »

I read some article before that said above 70mpw of slow running fatigues your slow twitch muscle fibres enough that your fast twitch fibres begin to be relied upon for slow running this making you a faster runner.

Any link Gringo? Sounds like what somebody might have said in a pub. (Though if it was Tim Noakes it might be true.)

Gringo78

RoyMcC wrote: »

Any link Gringo? Sounds like what somebody might have said in a pub. (Though if it was Tim Noakes it might be true.)

No link so must have been a pub. Definitely wasn't Tim Noakes and was hypothetical.

Article below though quotes some research on the various methods of increasing mileage:

http://www.powerrunning.com/Training/Why%20Increasing%20Weekly%20Mileage%20Improves%20Performance.doc

RoyMcC

Gringo78 wrote: »

No link so must have been a pub. Definitely wasn't Tim Noakes and was hypothetical.

Article below though quotes some research on the various methods of increasing mileage:

http://www.powerrunning.com/Training/Why%20Increasing%20Weekly%20Mileage%20Improves%20Performance.doc

Crikey I printed that off thinking it was a couple of pages, not 34 :pac: Looks very interesting .

T runner

RoyMcC wrote: »

Absolutely take that point ecoli. But I was simply plodding around doing slow miles which...just makes you a slow runner. If high(er) mileage incorporates intelligent tempo changes, and is in the context of making you a faster runner overall then fine. I'm not sure that the 1000 mile thread makes anyone a better runner per se.

But junk miles are sure better than no miles

I have to disagree slightly here. I was doing 2 runs per day sometimes 3 to get the miles in last year. The only structure was a long and medium long fastish run each week, and some CC races.


Out of just one speed session i ran a 34 min hilly 10k which is PB territory. I think i may have been ain form for a sub 75 flat half, my legs just got very strong, and my body make up adapted afvourably also.

This may have been becuase teh extra mileage had tired my slow twitch and was strenghtening my fast twitch with endurance, not sure.

But increasing the mileage IMO does increase strenght and performance assuming you are not overtraining and all else remains in proportion.

T runner

Gringo78 wrote: »

No link so must have been a pub. Definitely wasn't Tim Noakes and was hypothetical.

Article below though quotes some research on the various methods of increasing mileage:

http://www.powerrunning.com/Training/Why%20Increasing%20Weekly%20Mileage%20Improves%20Performance.doc

Excellent article, shows the value of intensity and duration of training. My improvements during the 1000 mile challenge could thus be explained by my long fast paced runs. I take it back Roy!

TFBubendorfer

Not that powerruning web site again.

It's run (pun ) by some guy whose 5K time is somewehere around 28 minutes and who a few years ago kept arguing on just about every running forum that he had found the perfect way to train.

Complete waste of time does not half describe it.

RoyMcC

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Not that powerruning web site again.

It's run (pun ) by some guy whose 5K time is somewehere around 28 minutes and who a few years ago kept arguing on just about every running forum that he had found the perfect way to train.

Complete waste of time does not half describe it.

What's wrong with it? I've not looked at the website but the research desribed in the article posted by Gringo above looks well done (I'm only part-way through it.) Has it been discredited?

Condo131

I agree with TFB. Had a reasonable skim through the 'tome' and a couple of things struck me, including:
1. Most of the references are pretty dated. Many of the (apparent) recent ones are simply reprints of earlier ones. Too many are w..a..y.. too dated!
2. Most of the research is based on beginner/first timers.
3. Any worthwhile info in it can be gleaned from page 1 of coaching 101.

I ain't gonna print it off, won't be quoting it and certainly won't be using it for bedtime reading!

RoyMcC

Well if TFB & Condo agree then there's a good chance they're right :cool: The article's going in the shredder.

BeepBeep67

How about the 15,000k challenge?
Belgian Stefaan Engels completes record 365th marathon

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-europe-12375646