mileage and pace

actually, 12 + 6 = 18

8 minute pace is pretty slow unless you are a girl, or old. I dont think 2 hours of running will prove detrimental. 2 hours seems like a good amount of time to be out running.

I have been thinking on the same lines. My problem lies with the idea of running easy enough to run your hard days hard. Are people really beating the crap out of themselves in a workout that they need to run easy the next day or two. I understand that one should run hard in a workout but at what end. I am surely tired at the end of my workouts but I am usually fine by the next day or at most two days later, all while recovering at about 6 minute pace on the non workout days. It seems that JK suggest that one runs slow, like Wejo running 7 minute pace. Sure you can run more miles and it will take more time to do so at this pace but were is the tradeoffs. If one can work there way up to 120 miles a week recovering at around 6 minute pace and still being able to hit their workouts at a quality level than why not run quicker, is 6 minute pace really that hard for someone of Wejo's ability? Is it really that much more stressful that one should shy away from it? I am jumping around here a little but I do believe that one should work their way up the mileage road in a slowly progressing manner. I think that someone who runs their recovery at 6 minute pace and runs similar mileage will be better off than someone of equal talent who runs similar mileage. Does this have any validity? Am I stupid for thinking this, if so please inform me better.

If you are running 12 in the morning and 6 in the afternoon as your recovery day, you are doing a ton of mileage.

Everyone agree that your recovery day is usually slightly slower and slightly shorter than your average mileage day for the week?

If we assume this to be true, then his average mileage day would be at least 19 miles. I also assume by referring to "recovery day" that this is his one recovery day, ie he is running 7 days a week.

19 miles x 7 days = 143 miles per week.

Ok, that's a lot of mileage, especially with 2 intervals workouts, and I assume a long run in there as well.

Does anyone think this person should as his or her coach about this training? I mean how many people out there are running this much, doing two interval workouts, and a long run in a week without a coach? And furthermore, who runs this much mileage and would even consider doing 8 minute pace on a training run? As 'curious as well' suggests, someone who can train this much (someone like Wejo?) should have trouble joggin around at 7 minute pace.

Something just doesn't seem right here...

First,

19x7 is only 133 miles in a week. 12 and 6 is 18 miles on a recovery day, and I hope there are some people on this board who don't think that that's a TON of mileage. I've done marathon training where I would hit a tempo run on tuesday, a hill workout on thursday, long run on Sunday, and then tried to put in 20 miles every other day of the week (except for monday which I would take really easy---one 45-60 min run at stumble pace). I thought this was a very reasonable schedule leading up to a marathon. However, I was usually running between 6:30 and 7:15 pace for the runs inbetween the harder workouts.

...but 133 is a ton of mileage if it's taking 7 - 8 minutes to run each one.

What's the point running over 100 miles a week (say) unless you're seriously attempting to run under 2.20, or 2.30 at the very least?

You're joking, right? Some people just don't have the talent, but still do have the drive, discipline, and desire to maximize their potential. Even if they only run a 2:45. Running over 100 miles/week is essentially the best way for someone with no talent to run as fast as they can in the marathon.

Not joking, but of course I wouldn't criticise anyone for getting out there and running.

I just think that someone who is prepared to put that amount of effort in should seriously consider cutting down on time spent on their feet, work a bit harder, and try and get as quick as they can first. Why try and run 2.45 for a marathon? Why not go for 32 min for a 10k, 70 min for a half?

Running 100+ miles a week is not fun if you're running at 8 minute mile pace (guys), and someone running 2.45 marathons is only really running for fun.

Bill Bowerman used to have people like Pre or Jim Beatty (I think) run 2-3 hard days separated by an easy day if they could handle it. So, you may do better off of doing, say, two genuinely harder days (like an LT run and a hill workout, or intervals and an LT run, or intervals and hills, etc) consecutively and then run at whatever pace feels good on recovery days. If this tires you out, you can go back to hard-easy, or go hard-hard-easy-hard-easy-hard-hard, etc

If your recovery days are 12+6 mile runs at 6:00 pace, I'd say that either: 1) You are racing national class times or better, 2) Your recovery day pace is way too fast, and 3) Your recovery day mileage is too high. I would recomend adding the volume to the Tuesday/Thursday workout days and make the days in between a truer recovery (less miles+slower pace). I don't believe the long-term gains in fitness are made from speeding up the recovery runs. I would say more voume in the workouts, coupled with a consistent mileage base, is the better option.

Six-minute recovery pace sounds pretty fast unless you're either VERY fast or doing low mileage.

12-6 isn't a bad recovery day; if you're a serious marathoner that's the norm. I do hard intervals Tues, 12-8 Wed, long tempo (13 total, 8 at tempo of about 5:40) Thurs, and another 12-8 Fri with a long run either Sat or Sun of 16-22 miles, totaling 100-130. My morning runs are 6:40-7:10 depending on the day, evening recovery miles 6:15-6:50. If it weren't so damn cold (0-20F) and slick here those mile times would all probably be 10-25 sec/mile faster. I can't imagine 6 min pace being recovery for someone of 2:29 ability though (unless I was doing 40 mpw).