Debunking the 10% rule...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/health/nutrition/21best.html?src=recg

41 weeks to running 24 hours a day.

Dave Wolfe wrote:41 weeks to running 24 hours a day.

Ha...

It just goes to show you that there is no one right way to train.

Thanks for the link Seth!!

Frankly, I think the article mischaracterizes the rule.

Its not meant to say that everytime you rebuild your mileage base you can only add 10% per week. That would be nonsensical. For example, after a fall marathon, I ran abuot 30-50 miles per week for 6 weeks. When I ramp back up, I jump right back to 90-100....because I've been at the level before. I do the same in coaching Jim and Chris.

However, when I'm pushing them to new mileage levels, I am careful not to increase by more than 10%. When I started coaching Chris, he wanted to get to 100 miles in a week. His high was in the 60's (I think). It took months to make that 40 mile jump. But now that's he hit that mileage, and shown he can sustain it injury free, I don't need to build him up as gradually.

Dave-O wrote:Frankly, I think the article mischaracterizes the rule.

Its not meant to say that everytime you rebuild your mileage base you can only add 10% per week. That would be nonsensical. For example, after a fall marathon, I ran abuot 30-50 miles per week for 6 weeks. When I ramp back up, I jump right back to 90-100....because I've been at the level before. I do the same in coaching Jim and Chris.

However, when I'm pushing them to new mileage levels, I am careful not to increase by more than 10%. When I started coaching Chris, he wanted to get to 100 miles in a week. His high was in the 60's (I think). It took months to make that 40 mile jump. But now that's he hit that mileage, and shown he can sustain it injury free, I don't need to build him up as gradually.

Dave, I don't think the article was talking about the 10% rule as it would apply to a runner such as yourself, especially given the scenario you cited (coming off a marathon and then ramping right back up to your previous mileage). I think the 10% rule is still a good rule of thumb (even if the tests the article cited don't bear it out), and does make good sense in situations like Chris's, where he was looking to substantially increase his weekly mileage. There's no way to safely go from the 60's up to 100 without doing it gradually, and the 10% rule is an easy way to manage the increase.

The article also didn't discuss what other factors could have contributed to individual runners become injured, whether they followed the 10% rule or not. The fact that one in five runners got injured is no great surprise. If you look at these boards, I think you'll see that this is just about right for most community of runners. Keeping to the 10% rule or not, and overtraining in general, is just one of a myriad of factors when it comes to a discussion of running injuries.

Seth Harrison wrote:

Dave-O wrote:Frankly, I think the article mischaracterizes the rule.

Its not meant to say that everytime you rebuild your mileage base you can only add 10% per week. That would be nonsensical. For example, after a fall marathon, I ran abuot 30-50 miles per week for 6 weeks. When I ramp back up, I jump right back to 90-100....because I've been at the level before. I do the same in coaching Jim and Chris.

However, when I'm pushing them to new mileage levels, I am careful not to increase by more than 10%. When I started coaching Chris, he wanted to get to 100 miles in a week. His high was in the 60's (I think). It took months to make that 40 mile jump. But now that's he hit that mileage, and shown he can sustain it injury free, I don't need to build him up as gradually.

Dave, I don't think the article was talking about the 10% rule as it would apply to a runner such as yourself, especially given the scenario you cited (coming off a marathon and then ramping right back up to your previous mileage). I think the 10% rule is still a good rule of thumb (even if the tests the article cited don't bear it out), and does make good sense in situations like Chris's, where he was looking to substantially increase his weekly mileage. There's no way to safely go from the 60's up to 100 without doing it gradually, and the 10% rule is an easy way to manage the increase.

The article also didn't discuss what other factors could have contributed to individual runners become injured, whether they followed the 10% rule or not. The fact that one in five runners got injured is no great surprise. If you look at these boards, I think you'll see that this is just about right for most community of runners. Keeping to the 10% rule or not, and overtraining in general, is just one of a myriad of factors when it comes to a discussion of running injuries.

Good stuff guys. I enjoyed this article taken not as a blanket statement.

[Moved this one too. We're still working on clarifying each sub-forum, but all running related topics should go here. I don't want to lose a good running debate in the "Coffeehouse."]

Carry on.

As a very general rule, I agree with the 10% increase and bumping up miles slowly to possibly prevent injuries.

I don't think it applies to every runner. Some can increase faster and others will have an upper limit on the miles. No matter how slowly you increase, they will still break down. Not sure if I'm thinking of the right runner, but I think Ritz falls into this.

Seth Harrison wrote:

Dave-O wrote:Frankly, I think the article mischaracterizes the rule.

Its not meant to say that everytime you rebuild your mileage base you can only add 10% per week. That would be nonsensical. For example, after a fall marathon, I ran abuot 30-50 miles per week for 6 weeks. When I ramp back up, I jump right back to 90-100....because I've been at the level before. I do the same in coaching Jim and Chris.

However, when I'm pushing them to new mileage levels, I am careful not to increase by more than 10%. When I started coaching Chris, he wanted to get to 100 miles in a week. His high was in the 60's (I think). It took months to make that 40 mile jump. But now that's he hit that mileage, and shown he can sustain it injury free, I don't need to build him up as gradually.

Dave, I don't think the article was talking about the 10% rule as it would apply to a runner such as yourself, especially given the scenario you cited (coming off a marathon and then ramping right back up to your previous mileage). I think the 10% rule is still a good rule of thumb (even if the tests the article cited don't bear it out), and does make good sense in situations like Chris's, where he was looking to substantially increase his weekly mileage. There's no way to safely go from the 60's up to 100 without doing it gradually, and the 10% rule is an easy way to manage the increase.

The article also didn't discuss what other factors could have contributed to individual runners become injured, whether they followed the 10% rule or not. The fact that one in five runners got injured is no great surprise. If you look at these boards, I think you'll see that this is just about right for most community of runners. Keeping to the 10% rule or not, and overtraining in general, is just one of a myriad of factors when it comes to a discussion of running injuries.

If I'm not mistaken Seth I think that Dave was basically saying he used the 10% rule with Chris the first time he was bumping him up from 60 miles to 100 miles. That he build him up slowly to make sure he would not get hurt and that Chris could handle the stress of the mileage. It's after Dave got Chris up to a 100 miles a week that he doesn't do or have to build him back up there slowly. Just like he said he now knows Chris and his body can handle the stress and that he has proved he does not get injured at that mileage. What happens is once you have run that mileage enough your body knows and remembers that stress therefore after a recovery period of lower mileage after a marathon lets say one doesn't have to use the 10% rule to build the mileage back up to there race training mileage. I'm the same way I will run 30 to 60 miles and then since I have trained so much at higher volume it's not a shock for my body to go right up to 100 miles or more without using the 10% rule.

I would say you could do the same thing lets say after a typical marathon without any time off for injury you were putting in 15 to 30 miles and you are now getting ready to start your next racing training an in the past you were doing 50 to 70 miles you could jump right up to that 70 mile range because you know you body can handle that stress it will remember it.

Now if the mileage you ran lead to an injury or you felt that the mileage your doing the last cycle was to much then yes I would jump up to a different and lower mileage. Also if you had time off from injury and your are going back into training I think that it is good to use some % to slow build back into mileage and build a base. But once you have your base back and your body feels ready to handle more there is no reason in my mind that you can jump up to your old training mileage. Again the key to that is that you have to be honest about was the mileage you were doing last training to much, did it cause injuries because of the mileage or was the mileage just right for you at that time.

Tim M wrote:As a very general rule, I agree with the 10% increase and bumping up miles slowly to possibly prevent injuries.

I don't think it applies to every runner. Some can increase faster and others will have an upper limit on the miles. No matter how slowly you increase, they will still break down. Not sure if I'm thinking of the right runner, but I think Ritz falls into this.

Very good point Tim. Every runner is different and just like training there is no cookie cutter plan for what % is right for all runners to bump up there mileage. I do believe it is a good starting point for new runners and then from there it is up to the runner or coach to be able to read the runners body and then make the correct adjustments either up or down in mileage build-up.