5 Mistakes Ultrarunners Make

Note to Reader: This is the third article in a series that challenges various assumptions in ultrarunning. In some cases, we may find that certain assumptions are correct; while in others we may find a new and better viewpoint. Please contribute your insights in the comments section. Enjoy!

In many ways, I feel like I’ve learned more about running in the past three months than in the previous eight years (I “started” running “serious” distance in 2004 at the age of 31). A rash of injuries over the past two years has forced me to rethink many assumptions I've always had about how to train properly for ultras and get into peak shape. Here are five concepts I’m only beginning to fully understand:

Weekly mileage is over-rated and arbitrary. Did I just say that? Yes, I did. A year ago I never would have even remotely entertained the notion that weekly mileage is over-rated. But the truth is that exclusively measuring your training according to a constantly revolving 7-day week starting on Monday and ending on Sunday is a faulty approach because it’s based on an arbitrary timeframe. When you're caught in the mousetrap that is the 7-day week, you can become obsessed with mileage to the point of risking injury. Here’s an example of why the 7-day running week is faulty: You can run two consecutive weeks of 70 miles and, in your log, that’s what it says—you ran 70 miles each week, end of story. But within those two weeks you have 14 days, and within those 14 days you might find a 7-day stretch where you ran 90, or maybe even 100, miles. Here’s an example of what I mean:

Week 1
Monday – 7M
Tuesday – 10M
Wednesday – rest
Thursday – 10M
Friday – 8M
Saturday – 20M
Sunday – 15M
Total: 70 miles

Week 2
Monday – 10M
Tuesday – 15M
Wednesday – 15M
Thursday – rest
Friday – 7M
Saturday – 13M
Sunday – 10M
Total: 70 miles

Note that in the above, 93 miles were run between Thursday of week 1 and Wednesday of week 2. It would be hard to pinpoint--and maximize--that excellent 7-day cycle if all you thought about was weekly output. You just ran 93 miles in 7 days and you may not have even known it.

Personal example: Last year I didn’t log a single 100-mile "week" (I came close a few times), but in April I had a 7-day stretch where I ran something like 107 miles, including a 50K race. It’s better to structure your training around cycles than weeks. If you structure around cycles, you’re more likely to schedule rest and cross-training days (those days constitute "rest cycles"), because then you won’t be obsessed with getting in a certain number of miles in a single week come hell or high water. In other words, you have different types of cycles, rest being among them. Make your cycle what you want it to be--7 days, 10 days, etc., and be sure to schedule some rest! All that said, I do look at weekly mileage as one of many measures, but my greater emphasis is on cycles—because cycles are more accommodating of recovery.

Mileage in general is over-rated. Again, this is another statement I never thought I’d make. In ultramarathon training, especially out here in the Mountain West, mileage often doesn’t tell the full story. If I decide to train on Hope Pass for the Leadville 100, on paper I’m doing a 21-mile “run” (it’s 21 miles from Twin Lakes to Winfield and back). But that doesn’t tell the full story—far from it. Those 21 miles, which bring 12,000 feet of elevation change between 10,200-12,600 feet, are going to take me upwards of 5-6 hours—that’s 5-6 hours on my feet in the mountains. On flat road I can pretty easily run 21 miles in 2:30 or less, but no one would argue 21 road miles is equivalent to 21 miles in the Colorado high country, just as 100 miles at sea level isn't equivalent to 100 miles on, say, the Hardrock course (I might catch hell for saying that...). Another example: It takes most well-conditioned athletes 30 or fewer minutes to complete the 1.3-mile Manitou Incline, which brings 2,000 feet of climbing. But there’s far more to the Incline than a distance equivalent to five laps around the track. The larger point I'm making is that time on your feet and terrain are just as relevant, if not more relevant, than mileage. I know guys and gals who run 60-70 miles a week in mountains, but they’re finishing top-10 in big races like Leadville, Hardrock, Wasatch, etc. Just as I know folks who run 100 miles a week on the road and crash and burn in mountain races. Now, let the arguing begin....

LSD is overrated and quality is under-rated. If all you do is run long, slow distance (LSD) in your training, you’re not really going to get faster or better. It’s far better to incorporate some quality into your training—like tempo running, intervals and/or fartleks—to improve your efficiency so that you’re able to cover the miles with less energy expended per step. If you’re not able to do much quality because you’re often too tired or beat-up from your training (a situation I have found myself in on occasion), you need to cut back on your overall volume and incorporate enough rest in order to allow for faster stuff. Eighty miles in a 7-day cycle with track work and tempo running is far more beneficial than 110 miles with zero quality in that same time span.

An ounce of recovery is worth a pound of peak performance. Lots of ultrarunners shun recovery because they think rest is counter to the gritty nature of the sport. The conventional wisdom is that ultrarunners grind out the mileage because that’s the only way to train properly for a race. And there is some merit to grinding out the mileage now and then, like on long back to backs (one of my staples). But recovery allows your body to heal, strengthen and improve from your training, so that you can move to the next level of fitness rather than remain in a plateau. If you never allow time for recovery, you’re going to eventually experience a deficit and actually go backwards. Believe it or not, but you can arrive at the starting line of a race in worse shape than when you began your training, even if you had grinded out mega-mileage for 18 weeks straight. Incorporate recovery—via days off and/or cross-training—and you’ll find that you are stronger in your long runs, are able to get in some good quality to maximize your efficiency, stand a much greater chance of avoiding injury, and will arrive at the starting line much more physically and mentally dialed in. Bottom line: Training serves to strengthen your body; recovery allows you to benefit from your training. Zero recovery = zero gain.

We too often over-race. Back in the day there were few races between November and March, leaving ultrarunners with 4 or 5 months to rest and recover. I was recently reading about how the Way to Cool 50K in Cool, California (a race I really want to do one day), held in early March, used to serve as a kickoff event for ultrarunning out West. No more. There are now races year-round. This presents some dangers to us ultrarunners because we too often convince ourselves that more is better. If you race year-round, without any time for recovery, you place yourself at risk of over-training and injury. You need a few months "off" (and by off I mean easy training and no racing) every year to regenerate. No runner can remain in peak shape all year. Better yet, within those few months of rest, take at least two weeks completely off from running and instead cycle, swim and/or walk. You would be shocked how much a few weeks completely off from running will help you.

Where am I on the right track? Where am I on the wrong track?