distance and frequency

running-forum.com
Promoting running discussion.

Main

Date: 13 Oct 2006 09:35:00
From: lake house
Subject: distance and frequency

I'm primarily running for weightloss and fitness. I'm currently running
two half marathons a month apart. After that I want to run about 20
miles per week and participate in 10K races once in a while and may be
a half once or twice a year.

That being the plan, how does running 6-7 miles 3 times a week compare
to running 4 miles 5 times a week on an on-going basis (maintenance
mode)? I'm leaning towards running 3 times a week due to several
constraints. How does that affect my goals? Ofcourse I'll watch what I
eat.

I'm a 31 yr old female, reasonably fit, have 20lbs to lose.

Thanks.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 17:13:33
From: Dot
Subject: Re: distance and frequency

lake house wrote:
> I'm primarily running for weightloss and fitness. I'm currently running
> two half marathons a month apart. After that I want to run about 20
> miles per week and participate in 10K races once in a while and may be
> a half once or twice a year.
>
> That being the plan, how does running 6-7 miles 3 times a week compare
> to running 4 miles 5 times a week on an on-going basis (maintenance
> mode)? I'm leaning towards running 3 times a week due to several
> constraints. How does that affect my goals? Ofcourse I'll watch what I
> eat.
>
> I'm a 31 yr old female, reasonably fit, have 20lbs to lose.
>

I think it depends on your recovery time and what else is going on in
your life. Various schools of thought say run more frequently, run 1-2
hrs, you don't get significant health benefits after 1:15, you need to
run at least 90 min, etc. (yea, I know they're conflicting, and I'm not
sure which, if any, have any studies backing them up - maybe the 1:15 one)

*My* (59, female) school of thought says "do what works" for you in the
long term. Until about a year ago, I had been running 3 days/wk, then
switched to every other day (worked really well for me), and gradually
trying to get 4 days/wk since I want to get higher volume.

With every other day this summer, my peak 7-day period had about 29.x mi
and 8 hrs of running / hiking (and maybe 3000 ft of hills, iirc; yes,
I'm slow), but lower wks were probably 5-6 hr. I'm generally active
(more than 30 min walk) at least 5 days/wk, sometimes more. If I run
consecutive days, I have to reduce the length of the runs. If I run
every other day, I can go explore trails to my heart's content (usually
1-2+ hr), and be recovered in 2 days to do the same all over again. Some
runs (long or big hills) do take more recovery. That type stimulus keeps
*me* happy, so I'm less likely to do something really dumb and get
injured. If I have a trail work day (not running, but may not recovery)
or an ice storm, I can adjust the schedule fairly easily to optimize
quality of run. I think the longer runs are more beneficial than the
shorter runs and make better use of time (getting winter layers on /
off, driving to trailhead, etc).

If I were to run 5 days days / wk with shorter runs, then I wouldn't be
able to explore as much. I'd repeatedly cover the same areas near the
trailheads more, and never expand my running experience and improve
skills. Best terrain for some things may be 30 min from trailhead, so
that's 1 hr of running just to be able to get to and from the workout.
It's also harder to accommodate other activities, like xc skiing,
"social" hikes or bike rides, etc. (at least at my level and recovery
rates - YMMV) I eventually feel chained, then do really dumb things.

I recognize my desire to explore trails on run days and have days to do
other things may not have anything to do with your goals and constraints
;), but just giving you an idea of what I've found when looking at
duration vs frequency. The main reason I've looking at increased
frequency is to build volume more, not for the sake of running shorter
on more days.

YMMV.

Dot

--
"Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan

Date: 13 Oct 2006 10:07:17
From: lake house
Subject: Re: distance and frequency

bluezfolk wrote:
> lake house wrote:
> > I'm primarily running for weightloss and fitness. I'm currently running
> > two half marathons a month apart. After that I want to run about 20
> > miles per week and participate in 10K races once in a while and may be
> > a half once or twice a year.
> >
> > That being the plan, how does running 6-7 miles 3 times a week compare
> > to running 4 miles 5 times a week on an on-going basis (maintenance
> > mode)? I'm leaning towards running 3 times a week due to several
> > constraints. How does that affect my goals? Ofcourse I'll watch what I
> > eat.
> >
> > I'm a 31 yr old female, reasonably fit, have 20lbs to lose.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
>
> From purely a fitness point of view I would think 5X 3miles would
> be better. For keeping in tune for 10K and 1/2s 3x 6to7 miles would be
> better. Whats your possibility of doing 3 or 4x 3miles and 1x7+ ?
>
>
> Eric

Thanks for your reply. I'm curious about the basis for your reply.

As per your question, I'm having to run at ungodly hours due to
schedule commitments and I don't see it getting any better in next
two years. I guess I can do 3x4 miles and 1x7miles.

Thanks.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 09:52:06
From: bluezfolk
Subject: Re: distance and frequency

Date: 13 Oct 2006 22:03:19
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: distance and frequency

Yeah, she'll watch what she eats.......as she shovels food in her yap
like tree limbs in a wood chipper.

Date: 14 Oct 2006 02:08:29
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: distance and frequency

On 2006-10-13, lake house <tedneeley@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I'm primarily running for weightloss and fitness. I'm currently running
> two half marathons a month apart. After that I want to run about 20
> miles per week and participate in 10K races once in a while and may be
> a half once or twice a year.
>
> That being the plan, how does running 6-7 miles 3 times a week compare
> to running 4 miles 5 times a week on an on-going basis (maintenance
> mode)? I'm leaning towards running 3 times a week due to several
> constraints. How does that affect my goals? Ofcourse I'll watch what I
> eat.

Split the difference. Variety is good.

Do some thing more like 3x4 + 1x8. That way, you get the best of duration *and*
frequency. When you get closer to a half, try to get in one or two 10 milers,
which shouldn't be a stretch if you do an 8 every week.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Date: 13 Oct 2006 11:29:05
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: distance and frequency

Tony wrote:
> I'm certain that my legs are more flexible and more resilient
> with more frequent running.

Yes, and I'm certain mine prefer 10 to 13 runs a week over 6 or 7, even
if nobody on wreck.running believes it. :-)

Date: 14 Oct 2006 02:12:41
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: distance and frequency

On 2006-10-13, Charlie Pendejo <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote:
> Tony wrote:
>> I'm certain that my legs are more flexible and more resilient
>> with more frequent running.
>
> Yes, and I'm certain mine prefer 10 to 13 runs a week over 6 or 7, even
> if nobody on wreck.running believes it. :-)

Doesn't seem to have hurt Gebrselassie or Tergat who churn out 13-a-week-after-week
unless they're travelling (flying is terrible for training). I ran some really fast
4 mile/10k times off similar training, which I'm starting to think I'll never be able
to touch again...

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Date: 14 Oct 2006 01:39:25
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: distance and frequency

"Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160764145.088548.207670@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Tony wrote:
> > I'm certain that my legs are more flexible and more resilient
> > with more frequent running.
>
> Yes, and I'm certain mine prefer 10 to 13 runs a week over 6 or 7, even
> if nobody on wreck.running believes it. :-)

I'd believe that if I was doing higher mileage. I was mostly in the mid 40s
to mid 50s for the bulk of this year, no need for 2-a-days with that volume.
OTOH, most of my workout were a brick: bike:run:bike, usually from about
1:10/1:15 on an easy day, to 1:50/2:10 on a harder day, aside from long run
days. I do think the body gets used to processing energy in a different way
if you do more at one time. Fat metabolism, while operating all the time,
takes time to catch up to more intense aerobic exercise. Running for 45 mins
is right about when things are getting cranked up. If you stop then, you
won't be training all the metabolic pathways needed for long runs. Of course
if you do 12 - 15 milers once a week, you'll get that then.

I've heard others say in this group that 80mpw on 2-a-days is much easier
that 80mpw on singles, with the latter clearly being harder training. I'm
just an observer to such things, and I do a single workout because it's
easier to manage my day around that, and because I commute on the bike to my
running trails.

-Tony

Date: 14 Oct 2006 02:05:45
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: distance and frequency

On 2006-10-14, Tony S. <email_tonys@yahoo.com > wrote:
> "Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160764145.088548.207670@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Tony wrote:
>> > I'm certain that my legs are more flexible and more resilient
>> > with more frequent running.
>>
>> Yes, and I'm certain mine prefer 10 to 13 runs a week over 6 or 7, even
>> if nobody on wreck.running believes it. :-)
>
> I'd believe that if I was doing higher mileage. I was mostly in the mid 40s
> to mid 50s for the bulk of this year, no need for 2-a-days with that volume.

Just an observation -- cross trainers (bike/runners) have another variable
that they're trading off. Namely, except for days you're doing brick workouts,
you only get in one type of exercise per training session. So it's not realistic
to run twice a day (how would you ever get any cycling done with such a plan ?).

So the balance is heavily tilted in favor in the direction of "once you start
a workout, keep doing it for at least an hour". One of my running partners who
does triathlons packs on "warmups" and "cooldowns" to make sure that any workout
comes to at least 10 miles. Even with several 2-a-days, it's pretty hard to get
a consistent 50mpw running *and* get in proper cycling (very time consuming) *and*
swimming (less time consuming, but inconvenient, because you've got to find an
open pool).

[snip]
> if you do more at one time. Fat metabolism, while operating all the time,
> takes time to catch up to more intense aerobic exercise. Running for 45 mins
> is right about when things are getting cranked up. If you stop then, you
> won't be training all the metabolic pathways needed for long runs. Of course
> if you do 12 - 15 milers once a week, you'll get that then.

I don't think you'll get much of anything from 1x12 miles/week. It's really
hard to say what trains "the metabolic pathways". You do train them even when
you do something as mundane as making a cup of coffee. It's more a question of
what optimally trains them, and that's a real mystery. A 60 minute workout
definitely builds up more mitochondria than a 30 minute workout, but what about
2x30 min workouts ? I'm not sure if this is well understood. There are some
very surprising results for example about the impact of short intervals on
things that are not supposed to benefit from short intervals (like aerobic
enzyme proliferation)

> I've heard others say in this group that 80mpw on 2-a-days is much easier
> that 80mpw on singles, with the latter clearly being harder training. I'm

Yep (-;

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Date: 13 Oct 2006 18:25:21
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: distance and frequency

"lake house" <tedneeley@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1160757300.619623.4030@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I'm primarily running for weightloss and fitness. I'm currently running
> two half marathons a month apart. After that I want to run about 20
> miles per week and participate in 10K races once in a while and may be
> a half once or twice a year.
>
> That being the plan, how does running 6-7 miles 3 times a week compare
> to running 4 miles 5 times a week on an on-going basis (maintenance
> mode)? I'm leaning towards running 3 times a week due to several
> constraints. How does that affect my goals? Ofcourse I'll watch what I
> eat.
>
> I'm a 31 yr old female, reasonably fit, have 20lbs to lose.
>
> Thanks.

I used to run 3 times a week, and bike on other days. While that was fine,
this year I tried running more frequently, mostly 5-6 days per week, and
it's been much better. I also increased my volume a bit. I'm certain that my
legs are more flexible and more resilient with more frequent running. If
there's any way you can do it, go for more frequency. While it will be hard
at first, after several months you'll have different legs.

Try to get in one longer run per week, to vary things, and run at different
speeds some days. This can be the old "hard/easy" or any way you want. I
think the best way is to go according to feel. When you're strong on a
particular day go faster, though not every day. Read some books about
running or follow this newsgroup to learn...

I was very stubborn at first about trying to run more frequently since I had
a bad hip and other problems and more frequency seemed to make things
tighter and stiffer. While that is true at first, after a while your body
adapts. The hip thing was lifestyle/mechanical and was only further revealed
and eventually corrected through learning about it while running.

-Tony,

Date: 13 Oct 2006 16:51:17
From:
Subject: Re: distance and frequency

lake house <tedneeley@yahoo.com > writes:
: I'm primarily running for weightloss and fitness. I'm currently running
: two half marathons a month apart. After that I want to run about 20
: miles per week and participate in 10K races once in a while and may be
: a half once or twice a year.

: That being the plan, how does running 6-7 miles 3 times a week compare
: to running 4 miles 5 times a week on an on-going basis (maintenance
: mode)? I'm leaning towards running 3 times a week due to several
: constraints. How does that affect my goals? Ofcourse I'll watch what I
: eat.

: I'm a 31 yr old female, reasonably fit, have 20lbs to lose.

: Thanks.

Hi Ted,

Welcome to rec running. Long time no hear. (from mkb).

I agree with the other poster who say you need to run more frequenly
than 3 times a week for fitness, but more than 5 miles to be prepared
for a 10K.

Like some of the others, I would suggest a mixture of shorter and
longer runs, with the longest longer than your race distance.
This often fits better into a variably busy life where you can
find the time for one long run in a week, and can spare less time
other days.

I would also suggest that the best frequency is 5 times a week, with
your two rest days not next to each other.

Keep running,
Larry

Date: 13 Oct 2006 22:43:49
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: distance and frequency

Tony wrote:
> Pendejo wrote:
>> Yes, and I'm certain mine prefer 10 to 13 runs a week over 6 or 7
>
> I'd believe that if I was doing higher mileage.

Right, it makes less sense to run doubles just to run doubles.

> Running for 45 mins is right about when things are getting
> cranked up. If you stop then, you won't be training all the
> metabolic pathways needed for long runs. Of course
> if you do 12 - 15 milers once a week, you'll get that then.

Whatever the physiological details and timing thresholds, yeah I'm
willing to believe that you want *some* longer runs if training for a
long race, whatever "long" means here. In my case most weeks have
included 3 runs of 11-16 miles: the Sunday LSD plus two harder midweek
workouts (MP and a little faster than MP) which typically come to 11-14
including WU and CD.

Although I believe it's entirely possible that some people do respond
better on 7 double-digit runs a week, I also doubt it's necessarily the
best for everyone to run only longish singles - in precisely the same
way it's not necessary for every run to be at 5k pace or faster if one
is training for a 5k.

> I've heard others say in this group that 80mpw on 2-a-days is much
> easier that 80mpw on singles

Having done one such 80 mile week in singles, I agree. It was notably
tougher on my leg muscles, which seemed to take more of a beating and
recover less. Your words, flexibility and resilience, apply.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 14 Oct 2006 20:04:05
From: smwinn7
Subject: Re: distance and frequency

i know this isn't what you want to hear right now

but

i'm going to lay this on you, if you want to get fit and get ready to
do these races you need to exercise everyday, let me clarify not run
everyday but exercise, do some cross training toss some other
activities in there it'll make things more fun when you do get on your
runs just finding a short routine to do could be what you looking for
try to put a short workout you can do before work in the morning while
you watch the local news standard things like ab work lunges, push ups
stuff make a little circuit of it do each oe for 30 seconds then take 5
or 10 off then move to the next. get your heartrate up and keep it up

Date: 15 Oct 2006 06:14:58
From: bluezfolk
Subject: Re: distance and frequency

lake house wrote:
> bluezfolk wrote:
> > lake house wrote:
> > > I'm primarily running for weightloss and fitness. I'm currently running
> > > two half marathons a month apart. After that I want to run about 20
> > > miles per week and participate in 10K races once in a while and may be
> > > a half once or twice a year.
> > >
> > > That being the plan, how does running 6-7 miles 3 times a week compare
> > > to running 4 miles 5 times a week on an on-going basis (maintenance
> > > mode)? I'm leaning towards running 3 times a week due to several
> > > constraints. How does that affect my goals? Ofcourse I'll watch what I
> > > eat.
> > >
> > > I'm a 31 yr old female, reasonably fit, have 20lbs to lose.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > From purely a fitness point of view I would think 5X 3miles would
> > be better. For keeping in tune for 10K and 1/2s 3x 6to7 miles would be
> > better. Whats your possibility of doing 3 or 4x 3miles and 1x7+ ?
> >
> >
> > Eric
>
> Thanks for your reply. I'm curious about the basis for your reply.
>
> As per your question, I'm having to run at ungodly hours due to
> schedule commitments and I don't see it getting any better in next
> two years. I guess I can do 3x4 miles and 1x7miles.
>
> Thanks.

Theres so many differing opinions on how to train, so mine isn't
necesarily right. My answer is based on the fact that by doing 4 runs
instead of 3 it will be of greater benefit to your cardio health and
that one longer run will keep you ready to do your 10K races, also the
pounds tend to roll off faster when you run over about 45 minutes at a
time (I know this firsthand). You'll find out for yourself what works
best for you, which isn't always what works best for other people.

Eric

Date: 15 Oct 2006 06:14:44
From: bluezfolk
Subject: Re: distance and frequency

Date: 15 Oct 2006 16:32:13
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: distance and frequency

On 2006-10-15, bluezfolk <ericreh@yahoo.com > wrote:

> Theres so many differing opinions on how to train, so mine isn't
> necesarily right.

I think one thing that is pretty uncontroversial is the idea that the length
of ones training runs should vary. That way, one gets the benefits of both
distance and frequency.

[snip]
> time (I know this firsthand). You'll find out for yourself what works
> best for you, which isn't always what works best for other people.

I agree that different people have different personal lives, schedules, time
constraints, etc. But physiology is essentially the same for everyone.

Cheers,
--
Elflord