THE 10% RULE........and apology.

[IannodaTruffe]

The other day MarkyD responded to a post by LisaGuy-Cowes, healthunlocked.com/couchto5... about increasing distance after injury. He advocated the 10% rule, stating “Add no more than 10% distance each week, so 3x 5km runs mean that you are running 15km. Next week don't run more than 16.5 km in total. “

I responded that my understanding of the rule was “if you did 10k long run one week then you can increase to 11 the following, assuming that any other runs of the week are of lesser distance or duration. “

Rignold agreed with MarkyD that it was based on the weekly volume rather than the length of your long run.

Now,I have been aware of this rule since graduating, and in fact dismissed a 10k training plan because the first run on the scheme was 6k, when I had never run more than 5k up to then. The knowledge was probably passed to me by some wise graduate on this very forum and I have been repeating my interpretation of that rule over the years. Anyway, this query made me do some research about the 10% rule and these are my findings.

Firstly, the rule states that you should never increase your weekly mileage by more than 10 percent over the previous week. runnersworld.com/running-ti... Nowhere can I find my version of this, that it is based on the distance of your long run, and duration does not seem to get mentioned at all. The differences in interpretation can be significant.

Take my base running as 2x5k and 1x10k per week, total 20k. With my rule that 10k run could be increased to 11k in the first week, 12.1k in the second week, 13.3k in week 3, etc.

With the weekly distance version, my long run could be 12k in week1, 14.2k in week 2 and 16.6k in week3.

This article strengthrunning.com/2010/06... has some useful tips for new runners but also some ideas that need to be exercised with caution. The writer suggests that you could decrease one of your weekly runs and add that mileage to your long run. If taken to extremes that could mean from my base I could drop my 2x5k runs add on the 10% and go for a 22k run, a half marathon, for god's sake, with no intermediate training. Certainly not a wise approach for new runners.

However I did think “As a newbie, don’t increase your mileage every week.  Keep it the same for 3-4 weeks at a time to allow your body to adjust.” from the same article was well worth bearing in mind, as it is often immediately post graduation from C25k that impatient new runners overdo it.

Probably the most interesting article I found was runnersconnect.net/coach-co... which discusses research which has failed to establish any scientific proof that the 10% rule actually works at all in keeping injury risk any lower than increasing distance by a greater amount. Also covered are other factors to take into consideration when upping the miles. For me, general fitness levels and age have a major bearing, especially on recovery. Despite being fitter than ever in my life, I don't bounce back from injury as quickly as I used to.

Let's face it 10% is an arbitrary figure. It just happens to make the calculation easier than 9.87% or even 15%. So as a guide it is well worth keeping in mind, and I am now a bit clearer about its application. To sum up, I apologise to anyone who took my advice, cursing as it seemed to take an age to get their mileage up. At least I didn't push you too hard and I am sure you didn't get injured. The other lesson to learn is that there is nothing to beat your own research.

Keep running, keep smiling.

The running pedant.

[goonkeepgoing Graduate]

Interesting post. I admit to being confused about this 10% rule previously. I finally settled on listening to my body and asking myself honestly how much I felt I was pushing myself. Seems to have worked. The one time I did aggravate my knee was when I did a 10k run at quite a quick pace followed 2 days later by pushing myself to beat my 5k pb. Broke no rules but definitely not wise in hindsight

[IannodaTruffe Mentor in reply to goonkeepgoing]

Listening to our own bodies is definitely a better rule, but I am only too aware that the ability to do that develops with experience, very often resulting from having pushed too hard at some point. So as guide, especially for the new runner (I still consider myself to be one, two years in) that rule is worthwhile.

[Rignold]

Good post, IT.

I think the important thing to bear in mind with all this that these are guidelines not hard rules, and will vary from prson to person.

The idea of the 10% rule is the amount of extra work one can/should sustainably increase over a period of time. If you run 50% more this week than last week it isn't going to kill you, or even 100%, but if you double your effort every week you're not going to run into trouble PDQ.

Bear in mind even increasing by 10% means you are doubling your volume every 7-8 weeks. If you started at 5k 3 times a week and did that every week for six months you would, theoretically be up to a frag under 60km for your long run.

Decide what your goal is, choose a realistic timeframe, use common sense.

[IannodaTruffe Mentor in reply to Rignold]

You are absolutely right, Rignold and that's why reading around the subject, rather than spouting the same old, inaccurate received wisdom, has been of benefit to me. It also means that on those few occasions, when I broke my rule, I had in fact probably not exceeded the rule as propounded by others.

What a good boy I am.

[tanyag_163 Graduate]

Very interesting. I've been quite random in my training. I'm finding that I'm looking for a new challenge and was thinking of applying the 10% rule but had no idea what it really meant. Thanks for the clarification as it's made me think about revising my training plan altogether

[IannodaTruffe Mentor in reply to tanyag_163]

Training for events is not part of my running either, so it is just a matter of setting a target and moving, gradually, towards it, without it ever becoming too obsessive. The 10% rule/guide certainly seems a safe way to go, but then again, the research doesn't bear it out at all.

[Pollynorris Graduate]

I read the same article and found it rather comforting. I advocate listening to my body and followed a bridge to 10k programme that has graduates divided on here. I followed it but after sticking to 5k for some months and getting used to that distance first, meaning I had followed the advice for newbies without actually been given it and probably saved myself from injury.

I'd certainly recommend the article to anyone thinking about increasing their distances.

[IannodaTruffe Mentor in reply to Pollynorris]

Sounds like you got it right from the start. There is a gender difference here, I believe. Males are much more likely to want to prove themselves (if only to themselves) while women are far more rational to their approach to recreational running. Men need a rule......women are okay with a guideline.

[Runon Graduate]

Great post - Seems the key element is 'exercise caution, listen to your body, and as a guideline: a 10% increase by volume per week shouldn't do any harm'. It is wise to have a guideline especially after the euphoria of 'graduating'. C25K itself doesn't seem to follow the guideline with an increase of 20% between weeks 5 & 6. After graduating I increased from 30 - 60 mins of running in simple increments of 5 mins which seemed to work as far as my body was concerned - then I just jumped from 60 - 70 mins the next week - the only injury I've had has come from drastically increasing my pace by more than 10% on one 5K run!

[IannodaTruffe Mentor in reply to Runon]

My only injury came while running well within the 10% rule, but actually pushing hard, when I had told myself before the run that it should be a gentle run. But then I never listen to my own good counsel......

[Hidden]

must admit my initial thought on the 10% was the same as yours but probably read similar articles and realised the same as you didn't stop me picking up an injury but hey ho live and learn

[IannodaTruffe Mentor in reply to Hidden]

Coming back from injury, I have been even more zealous about the 10% rule and that slow and steady build back now has me feeling in fine form and back where I was before injury.

[Hidden in reply to IannodaTruffe]

that's great news IT I am following the same path back ,slow and very steady

[MarkyD Graduate]

That's a excellent set of research, IT, thank-you for looking into this.

Runon summarised well - we should be cautious about ramping up our exercise too quickly. I think I will start referring to the 10% rule as the 'approximately 10% guideline' from now on.

Let's all try to not get injured.

Mark

[IannodaTruffe Mentor in reply to MarkyD]

I came across a load of other stuff too and it becomes very clear that a lot of internet articles are cut and paste jobs, with only a small degree of editing....so a lot of repetition. Thanks for raising the query in the first place Mark. Your "approximate guideline" statement is probably the way to go alongside awareness of our own bodies.

[Ullyrunner Graduate]

Thanks for reporting the fruits of your research IT - very interesting. I'd like to pretend that it was this confusion that was making me stick at 3x5k, but I'd be lying. I may not be extending my range but have been free of any niggles for months now.

[IannodaTruffe Mentor in reply to Ullyrunner]

There is nothing wrong with sticking with 3x5k, Ully, in fact it is probably a very wise decision in the light of all the studies that have been done on running in the past few years, and it is certainly a good way to keep injury free. That said, I love longer runs, and my weekly 2x5ks are just maintenance runs to keep me in form for the weekend.

[notbad Graduate]

Yes I'd read it was a guide rather than a rule too. I think it works for many of us as mentally that 10% increase feels doable, but certainly I've upped more than that when I've felt good and been okay.

[IannodaTruffe Mentor in reply to notbad]

I think we have all exceeded the rule/guide at some point, but I think Rignold's approach of keeping it in the context of a weekly training load is a very rational way to keep it all in proportion. Again, listening to your body takes centre stage, but that listening skill has to be learned by experience.

[Realfoodieclub Graduate]

Great post and very well researched. In the early days after graduation I took the 10% rule from each run and I suited me perfectly. I was happy with the little increases. I then went on to do an Asics HM plan that was all mapped out. It took me from 10km to 14 km in one week. I wasent happy with that I didn't managed the first 14km run and took four weeks to build up to it. The next jump 14 - 17 km which I managed fine. As with everything to do with running the best advice comes from your own body. Listen to it and treat it with tlc. I agree with doing all the reading and learning add in listening and I don't think you can go far wrong.

[IannodaTruffe Mentor in reply to Realfoodieclub]

So right RFC, and learning all that is all part of the process.

[Rignold]

ultimately better safe than sorry, and as most of us are not actively pursuing athletic records or competition, slower but safer progress is no bad thing.

I sometimes recklessly increase my training volumes. Sometimes its okay, other times it has catastrophic results. There are no failed experiments. You either prove or disprove a hypothesis. It comes down to how much risk you are comfortable with and what your goals are. Mine are quite extreme, most people's are probably more reasonable. I'm trying to pack as much into the time I have left as possible, so intensity and risk are fine. If your aim is long term improvement to overall fitness then a gentler curve makes a lot more sense.

[IannodaTruffe Mentor in reply to Rignold]

You are doing a great job at educating us conservative runners in the black arts of running......no, I don't want to go there thank you......and long may your judgement keep you injury free.

[AncientMum Graduate]

This is such an interesting post, m'dear. I must confess, I've advised people many times that they should only increase their distance by 10%, without specifying whether it was total weekly distance or long run distance. Despite your clarification, I still reckon that for we c25kers who've take up running when, how can I put this, we're not in our first flush of youth, then increasing the long run by 10% is the safest way to do it. It may take longer to get there, but it must surely be better for out joints. Horses for courses I guess, but this old nag will be building up her distance very slowly when she's finally allowed back out of the stable block 🐎

[IannodaTruffe Mentor in reply to AncientMum]

Gee up lass....you'll be cantering soon. Guidelines are guidelines and obviously flexible and the common factor in all the responses is that listening to ourselves, and being cautious rather than gung ho is the best way to keep those creaky old bones functioning.

[Anaverageman Graduate]

I agree... There is SO much ( not just in running, but within exercise as a whole which is presented as ' fact' but is, in reality just established practice. It can often be presented ( in fitness magazines particularly) with a 'veneer' of ' scientific support, but when you really examine them more closely.. ( as in ' does only increasing by 10% REDUCE the risk of injury?) you find the ' evidence' tends to evaporate and the actual answer is NO.. ( as in your runners connect article! but even that was only one study )

The whole ' science of exercise' is really still in its infancy and i DO think those that try and present ' apocryphal experience' as hard fact or law..or who generalise from ONE experiment which supports their ' conclusion' do none of us any favours...

[Moonlit Graduate]

very interesting thoughts here. I will spend the next 3/4 weeks consolidating my 30mins/5K, however in reading about this rule I take that is about the weekly total mileage and a plan to increase it to a desired distance over a set period of time. Fine. What struggle to make sense of is the fact that R1 and R2 remain fixed and the entire increase is given to the long run. I premise I am new to running and training in the first place so really is about curiosity and learning for me.

The way I would have done myself is to increase both R1 and R2 and not only R3. For instance by applying a 20% of the weekly increase to R1 and R2 and adding the remaining 40% for the long run. To me looks more balanced. So my question is; is there a particular reason why in your approach the short runs remain locked in position?

[IannodaTruffe Mentor in reply to Moonlit]

Most people, when they are increasing their distance, are aiming at a specific distance, say 10k or 15k. To achieve that distance, keeping within the rule, by only increasing one run per week, you arrive at your target distance in a shorter time period.

This is not my approach, but that which is widely accepted across the running world to be a safe way to increase training load. Long runs, which are pushing duration are recommended to be at an easy pace, but are still considered to be a hard run. One other run is often a shorter hard run where it is pace, rather than distance that is stretched.