Low mileage, quality training?

they want a short cut or a quick fix.

yyy wrote:

they want a short cut or a quick fix.

Or they don't want to get injured.

Or because some people do respond better to it...

Or because you touch yourself at night.

Screw arguments. "Logical" arguments about what should be the best training are the biggest part of what went wrong with American running for a couple decades.

I think there's two main reasons someone would prefer lower mileage training:

(a) insufficient time or motivation for more miles,

(b) runner has tried it both ways and responds better (runs faster and/or is injured less) on low miles, high quality

Some people do claim to fall into the latter category, though no doubt most will run better on 80 MPW than 60. I've run better on higher mileage, and if anything I've been more injury prone trying to pile too much "quality" on too small a mileage base.

I'll give you some reasons:

* quality base building:

runs of 15 - 45 minutes at 15" to 30" slower then your theoretical best marathon pace.

* better recovery

Short easy runs help better in recovery then really long runs

* injury prevention

less pounding

* less time consuming

more time to do other things

some other reasons

- Bernard Lagat

- Sebastian Coe

- Jim Spivey (are you here?)

- ...

Low mileage could still mean doubles and one or two longer runs a week and be anywhere from 12 to 70 miles a week in my eyes. Over 70 and we talk about high mileage as this holds in averaging more then one hour of running a day.

Consider:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2959804&page=0

I think the biggest reason to go high mileage rather than high quality is that almost anyone can build to high mileage without getting sick of running. On the other hand, to follow the training in the attached link you have to know what you are doing.

1. the adaptation from training is a function of many variables, not just mileage run. you should be able to name at least 10 factors which determine your adaptation and capability.

2. runners differ in basic fiber type. fast and intermediate fiber requires higher velocity for optimal adaptation. this helps explain why successful training approaches vary quite widely. Did you know that the first runner to break 13' in 5000 ran just 60 miles/week? That Kipketer smashed Coe's 800m mark with less volume? That Wanjuri and Kibet run less volume than Tergat, yet race faster in the longest distance? That the best US distance runner has been doing 60 mile/week and winning medals?

3. whatever volume a runner uses to achieve a performance, it is the *maximum* required, not the minimum.

4. the east african training is most notable for the willingness to put in additional quality volume, and a willingness to rest when necessary. sometimes taking a rest day is the most competitive thing you can do.

5. compare the improvements in US records to world record progression. the obsession with volume has curtailed our progress.