Hi There,
Just a question to anyone out there that actually reads this stuff. Does anyone commute to work by running? Now I'm not really concerned with those that live within say a 6 mile radius of their job, I'm more concerned with people that if they ran to work it would be an hour to 90 minutes each way. I've been toying with the idea of running to work for some time now as a way to get my training in and not take away from the family. I'm also getting tired of the traffic jams (now that construction season is on us) and having to pay for parking every morning, the potential problems with running to work is that I'm on call for two weeks every month, so if there was a problem at work I wouldn't be able to run that morning, plus there are also no showers here but there is a Y two blocks from the office (so I guess that cancels that one).
There's an article in Runnersworld about 4 people that (by RW's Standards) Work hard and Train Hard, but the person that run the most mileage tops out at 50 miles a week. What about people that work 40hours a week but then train around 80 - 100 miles a week? Why don't we hear about those people, as they are the ones I'd like to ask how they do it.
Ideally I'd like to run to work twice a week and keep my lunch time runs as well. This would bring my mileage or weekly K's up to approx. 160K a week. Is it doable? would there be a benefit from going from 130-140K per week to 160? or would I just be taking away from time I should be using for recovery?
Thanks for reading
It's a delicate balance between work/training/rest/repeat. If training goes up, so should rest(sleep). If you are running 2 hours per day and sleeping an extra hour every night, then you have "lost" 3 hours per day, and whatever you would normally do during that time must give way (family time, for instance). If you choose not to invest in more sleep, then you run the risk of literally running yourself into the ground. Personally, I think working civilians who can't nap in between 90 minute doubles are doing themselves more harm than good. Nevermind throwing in a triple at lunch time.
ReplyDeleteOf course, people (even elites) who say they run 160/180/220km/week fail to admit that this is only for a three or four week period at the peak of marathon training. If you want to have a few random peak mileage weeks, then go for it. But allow an easier week on either end.
Thanks for the comments. Taking away from recovery is not the greatest solution. More training = more rest/recovery. I was thinking that I'd run to work twice a week and then run at lunchtime and then take the bus home. No triples, and never going above 160K. Since I spend about 45 minutes driving to work and 45 back each day I'm thinking I could run for some of that time. I was also thinking that this wouldn't be every week until a week or so before New York, I'd build up to it and then hold that mileage for a couple of weeks and then cut back a little before building up to it again.
ReplyDeleteI misunderstood. Running to work (and then at lunch)and taking the bus home sounds like a fine plan. Also using 160 as a maximum, and hitting it just a few weeks, sounds fine also. After all, this is an activity we do for fun, and should be prioritized as such.
ReplyDeleteCongrats on getting in to New York.
Although I live very close to work from a running perspective, the distance between two points can be as long or as short as you want it. In your case, the limiting factor would be the shortest route. On double days I run a route to work that takes 50 minutes. So I'll run 50 at around 8am, then 50 home at around 5pm. am/noon training would be too close for my liking. Can't you take the bus part way, then hop off and run the rest of the way? Doing the same on the return? That way you would have an even recovery pattern between all of your running.
ReplyDelete