Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Sustainability of Mileage

The great debate in the ultra-sphere of how to train for ultra-races has seemed to level off over the past several months - partly because there are fewer big races this early in the year but mostly because people are realizing there is really no 100% correct way to train for an ultra (even more likely is because the topic was beaten to death).  There are simply too many people being successful in races who train in a different style.  Ultrarunning is completely subjective in that regard.  There are still questions that  I cannot answer about the sustainability of certain types of training...unfortunately it is impossible to sustain a high level of training for X amount of time and when many ultra runners are constantly on the edge in their training, it is important to discuss the limits of how far to go and for how long.


Many cases show runners training at a high level in terms of pure mileage and time.  Noticeably, and probably most recognizable, is Anton Krupicka's 2007 lead-up to the Leadville 100, when he ran over 1000 miles and 150 hours in a 5 week span - this is not even to mention what was sure to be an incredible amount of elevation gain.  This high level of training led to a 45 minute personal PR at Leadville and a margin of victory by over 3hours.  Was this sustainable?  Maybe for a couple month period it was... but from this post it seemed as if the sustainability ran out after he tried to resume his heavy training shortly after L100, as he had to be sidelined with an injury.  It should also be noted that the 5 weeks leading up to the 1000 miles in 5 weeks went like this: 0 mi., 63 mi., 32 mi., 29 mi., and 133 mi.

The Krupicka account is a micro-example of a very high level of training -really only over a 7 week period.  Another example of training at a high level, that I would love to learn more of, is Jim O'Brien's training for the1989 Angeles Crest 100.  O'Brien ran what is now considered one of the stoutest course records in ultra running, standing the test of time at17:35:48, over 50 minutes faster than any attempt thereafter.  This article lets us know a little about his AC journey.  So, this could be considered a macro-example of training at a high-level.  He focused his training on AC100 a year in advance and ran six weeks of peak mileage from 150-200 miles (I had previously heard he ran 200 miles a week for the 10 weeks leading up to AC, but this article proved otherwise).  We have good reason to believe that he built up to that 150-200 range in the previous months and weeks.


There are obviously many different types of training considered at a "high level" other than running high mileage alone(i.e. mountain running, speed work, etc.), but those types are not as demanding as spending the amount of time on ones feet (and the pounding in legs) that it requires to run 150-200 miles a week.  Every runner is unique and can innately handle different amounts of mileage for different amounts of time.  When someone tries to justifiably put a cap on people’s ability to handle a certain load, it can lead to lesser performance, so that is not the purpose here.  It should be more about people understanding that there is a certain limit, but smartly attempting to defy the odds of human expectations.

So then, what would be considered running too much?  How long can you sustain running higher mileage?  Through my experience, I have found that going over the 140 mile per week mark requires a lot more attention to detail then, say, running in the 100-115 range.  I am sure once you get over the 175 and into 200 mile range your body will react a lot differently than 150.  And also, it is one thing to reach a high mark, such as 175, but it is another thing to do it consecutive weeks and even to build upon it.  If you were able to build on 175, how much can you build and how long can you hold it that high until you are injured or simply start digressing?  Even I have experienced this invincibility that comes with being at a high amount of miles, where it feels like I am floating up steep hills and when 2 hours feels like 2 minutes.  In these times though, I know that I probably am on the complete edge of my fitness, very susceptible to an injury (fine china).  Krupicka said in this post“that those times in one's running when you feel most strong, most indestructible, invincible, are the times when you are probably most vulnerable to injury because the training required to get to that point is considerable.”  

There are certain values at being on the complete edge of one’s fitness. For one, it will give a lot of confidence and readiness for a 100 mile race.  It also just feels good to be fit and pushing the limits.  Maybe most importantly, it is intrinsically satisfying to travel long distances over relatively short period of times through nature.  With all that, there are apparent negative affects at being at such a high level as well.

Anton sums it up well here when it comes to sustainability: “In a moment of rare rationality today it occurred tome that I would be far more consistently mentally stable and physically sound if I lowered my mileage a touch--to a more sustainable level--that would allow me to amass week after month after year of solid training without getting hurt.”

So, it is ultimately your choice on how you train, and at what mileage you decide to reach.  The dedication and time involved to get at a high amount of miles is considerably taxing – then you have to weigh the odds of if you want to risk getting injured or not… there is always a risk though.  If your goal is to “go for broke,” you might want to push the edge a little further. If you are trying to be more sustainable, it might be best to scale back the miles so you can amass more miles over the course of an entire year, not just a short period of time to nail a race.     

WMO

17 comments:

  1. very interesting post, I enjoyed the read!

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you aren't stupid about it, anyone can sustain 200+ miles a week.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mike, you need to purchase the Lore of Running. It is a great book and I think you will enjoy the persperctive the author has on running and training for ultras. He believes that it takes two solid years of training to truly peak for an ultra. At times I wonder if people race too many ultras in a short period of time. I feel like Kilian Jornet is really the only guy right now that will show up and race well where ever he races. But he doesn't even run through the winter months because he is a competitive ski mountaineer. Michael Wardian is also a total BAMF. Carpenter is also a legend but I really don't know much about him. I just think every person is different and reacts differently to the stress of training. I do believe anyone can sustain 200+ miles a week. But really who wants to run 200+ miles a week if they actually care about anything other than running. I work full time and have a family. If I wanted to completely shut my wife and kid out of my life I could run 200 miles in a week. I believe that is the one aspect you are missing in your analysis of how many miles a person can run in a week. Their lifestyle. Right now is tax season. I am busy as hell and I have a 4 month old son. I would have to wake up at 4 a.m. everday to run 100 miles in a week. Certain people have other limitations than the likelihood of getting injured. I love you and your lifestyle choices and I respect the fact that you have the time to run 130 miles a week. It would just be way harder for me to run that mileage than it is for you. And I am not trying to say that I could run the mileage you do if I lived your lifestyle. What you do week in and week out with your running is truly amazing, shows incredible discipline and dedication, and shows how much of a BAMF you are. I love you Michael Owen. I just thought I would bring up some other points you missed and write the longest blog comment known to man. Keep living the dream man. I am proud of you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keegan-

      I work a fulltime white collar career and have 2 kids (the youngest being 6 months old). I DO wake up at 4 every morning and DO get in 100 mile mountain weeks. It can be done but it takes sacrifice. I still have to shoot hoops with my 10 year old every night, spend time with my wife and help around the house, and make sure my little baby knows who her dad is. I do get a tiny bit jealous when I read posts about the young guys that spend all day in the mountains but that is not an option for me. I would not trade my situation for anything. Set that alarm at 4 and get after it!!

      Great post and new to the blog.

      Delete
  4. Keegan, I did leave out a lot of factors that could limit running at such a high mileage, but I was already over my self-imposed word limit. I could have went on and on about how in order to run at such mileage, we need to be spot on with nutrition, sleep, and family life balance. I have mad respect for you and your new family and love seeing it. Someday all that will come for me and I'll be faced with new challenges. Love you man. Thanks for the uber-long comment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great post Michael! Just curious, is that your cabin in the banner pic? Gorgeous, whoever owns it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not mine, but a friends of mine that I lived in for a couple years.

      Delete
  6. Michael, very nice discussion and great job doing your background research. There is one thing that I take issue with though. You can't take the intensity out of the equation that easily. You state, "There are obviously many different types of training considered at a "high level" other than running high mileage alone(i.e. mountain running, speed work, etc.), but those types are not as demanding as spending the amount of time on ones feet (and the pounding in legs) that it requires to run 150-200 miles a week." I don't think you can say in absolute terms that 150 mpw is more demanding than a training plan with significantly less mileage but much more intensity (speedwork). If I tried to run 100mpw all at sub-5 min pace, I know my body would break down before it would if I were to run 150 mpw at 8 min pace. That may be an extreme example, but I think it gets my point across. There are more ways to stress the body than just mileage. And you don't even touch on the subject of single vs doubles in reaching peak mileage. The important thing to realize is that everyone is different. Some folks can handle loads of slow mileage, while others may be able to handle less mileage, but more intensity. You have to find your own balance. So yes, "it is important to discuss the limits of how far to go and for how long," but I don't think that can be separated from discussing the "how fast" as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David,

      For the most part, I wanted this post to focus on mileage alone. The length of this post would have been way too long if I went into other aspects of high mileage/high intensity. When I envision high mileage, I look at it from pure trail perspective only. Also, not just flat smooth trails, I mean technical, gnarly, and hilly. This was not mentioned in my post - maybe it should have... but trail running is what I primarily do and what my blog as been about since I've started it. Anyways, when running on this type of terrain, I feel like there is a certain pace that "feels right" without walking/hiking. Sometimes hiking up steep sections is the only option.

      But... as @Terrysrunning mentioned, I also want to totally separate this idea from something like what Jenn Pharr-Davis did... that was a total focused pursuit and she was literally running an average of 324 miles per week for nearly 7 consecutive weeks! That was the event itself, as my post is talking about the training - really for a 100 mile race.

      And you are right, running 100 miles at sub-5min. pace is going to be more intense than running 150 at 8min. pace. I interchange "high-level" and "high-mileage" too much in my post; the time spent on the trail at 150/8min pace is a lot more than 100/5min pace (I guess that was the point I was trying to bring out). There seems to be a pace that you mold into that is "comfortable" (different for each person) for high mileage weeks without "pushing" it.

      As far as singles vs. doubles go, I just didn't see the importance of bringing that up as it would be virtually impossibly to run 200 miles in singles. I have never been the guy to say doubling a few times a week is bad for you, even at 800 mpw. I'm a doubles guy and I would guess anyone running 150-200 would be as well.

      Thanks for the reply, and good points, Michael

      Delete
    2. Michael, I think it was fairly well implied that the training you are talking about is tailored toward 100 mile trail races. With that in mind, I would still argue that if your goal is to maximize performance, it is crucial to find the correct balance of high mileage and intensity as opposed to simply finding your maximum sustainable mileage. Intensity in this situation won't be 400m repeats on the track, but if you want to race faster, you have to train faster on occasion. Finding the optimum balance between mileage and speed is the real question that needs to be answered if one is to achieve their maximum potential.

      Delete
    3. I would agree with that to a certain level. For 100's, if I was running Rocky Raccoon, some faster training might be important. But a course like Hardrock or Wasatch... I would not feel obligated to do anything fast. I wonder what Kyle Skaggs did before his HR.

      Delete
    4. Michael, I tried to be very careful using speed and intensity interchangeably, but apparently I wasn't careful enough. Speed is relative. I can almost guarantee you that the intensity level of your training would increase if you went out and trained on the Hardrock course. Ten minute miles, and even just hiking many sections of that course, would be considered high-intensity training. 200 mpw on Ohio trails or 150 mpw on the Hardrock course...which would be harder on the body? The claim you made in your original blog post is that mountain running and speedwork (which I have relabeled "high intensity" training) are "not as demanding" as running very high volumes of "comfortable" mileage. That's just not accurate in all cases. The question to ask Skaggs would not be did he ever run *fast*, but did he ever run *hard* in the mountains during his training.

      Delete
    5. It's impossible to not run hard in the mountains, or else you aren't going to be running. Running at the slowest pace before walking up the mountain gets your heart pumping no matter what. And I would argue that going at the same "intensity" uphill as roads or flat trails (and definitely downhill)... then the uphill would be much easier on your body in terms of pounding and injury potential. But then you have to run back down the mountain, which is some serious pounding.

      Delete
  7. Michael, very good read. Thanks for the post.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's still hard for me to wrap my head around what 100 miles a week takes. Thanks for pointing out the badassery of Wardian. That guy is a BEAST.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I was going to comment basically to the effect that David did, above. 150 miles per week at a jog/hike/run is likely far more sustainable than hard race training. Witness the accomplishments of a Jenn Pharr-Davis on the AT this year, and other similar records. That's RIDICULOUS mileage, but obviously not as intense, and they seem to survive. Trying to really run FAST for that many miles would be crazy. Everyone has to find their balance. Although, a case could be made that anyone reading this blog or even considering that kind of mileage obviously has no comprehension of what balance is to begin with :-))

    ReplyDelete
  10. great dialogue guys - Michael thanks for the post. my very favorite things to read & listen to on podcasts are related to training & what people do, peoples preferences, etc. as you point out, it's so crazy how many different approaches there are right now. good stuff!

    ReplyDelete