🚀 go-pugleaf

> From: samari@watnxt2.ucr.edu (Tammy Woodley)
> ...
> I am curious about the effects of running on consecutive days.  I figure
> that it probably depends on how far and hard you run, but what are the best  
> combinations?   

Read the attached article below originally posted last August.

> The reason why I ask is because I've been running every other day for about
> 3 months now, and I am up to about 3.5 miles each time, with a small
> increase each week.

You are doing it right. This is rare, most people try to boost mileage
in a crash program which leads to the chronic injuries which you hear
them moaning about on the net every day. Stick with this basic plan, SMALL
INCREASES EACH WEEK, and you'll never go wrong.

> I would like to start running more often, but am not sure whether I  
> should do more speed or endurance work.  

That depends on your goals. Do you want to run some fast races? Then run
faster, otherwise speed is of no consequence. Do you want to run/hike/ride
longer distances? Then more endurance work is required.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Berkery, Computer Scientist, GE Research, Schenectady NY
(berkery@crd.ge.com)  "The Common Sense Coach"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another interesting article I read in "Running Research News" was about
a study to find a good predictor for why runners get injured.

It has long been assumed that the foremost predictor was mileage. As
miles go up, so too does the risk of injury. This has become gospel in
the running community so almost no one had ever bothered to question it.

This study at the University of South Carolina followed 433 runners for 12
months who recorded their running in log books. 65% reported at least one
injury which resulted in some loss of training time. Is this a surprise? No,
not to me anyway. But a couple unexpected results did come out of the study.
Mileage alone was not the first or even the second best predictor. The
number one predictor for running injuries was whether they had been injured
before. Number two was consecutive days of running.

Let's look at those two. First, if you had been injured before, you are
more likely to get injured again. Makes sense, no? Those who are prone to
injury because of biomechanical imbalances or weaknesses in key support
or muscular areas will tend to get injured again. Those who train in ways
which increase risk of injury will tend to return to make the same mistakes
again after healing. On the other hand, those who have never or rarely
been injured before are not likely to get injured at all. Either they are
built right for taking the stresses of training or they are training in
ways which reduce injuries.

The next best predictor was something none of us probably ever thought of.
Consecutive days of training was a far better predictor than mileage itself.
That is, those who trained 6 or 7 days a week were more injury prone than
those who trained with more days off. Even among those who ran 5 days a
week, those who ran more days in a row were more prone to injury than those
who spaced them out. Say you run 5 days on and two days off and the next
guy runs two on, one off, three on and one off again. Your risk of injury
is higher. So it would seem that if you want to increase mileage more
safely it's better to increase the length of each run instead of the number
of runs per week.

OK, now the bottom line. Wanna know why all this is so? REST, REST, REST!
The time between the runs allows the body to recover from the pounding of
the previous run. More rest, more time for the muscles to strengthen before
being beat up again. With more consecutive days running week after week
the body accumulates more micro-traumas which cannot be repaired in only 24
hours and these micro-injuries tend to build into bigger and bigger things
which evenutally result in down-time. Hey, it sounds just like plain old
Common Sense to me.