What is the consensus?
For 10km and up ---
What is the consensus?
For 10km and up ---
got to 'find' your sweet spot. I will say this .. college teammates had 3 break 2:20 and another @2:21. All ran welllll over 100 mpw. 2:15 guy ran above 200 for 8 weeks in a row, he also ran 8,000+ miles one yr. That mileage wasn't my 'sweet spot' but it was over 100. And we didn't do to bad, for the early 70s. Those guys were quite accomplished back in the day
The consensus I bet will ... not be a consensus
Is this a serious question? You think it's a coincidence almost all elite distance runners put in 100+mpw? I know an elite marathoner who consistently does "only" 100-110mpw because he's "never been a high mileage guy." A lot of elite marathoners are putting in 120-150mpw, at least during some times of the year. Most 10k guys are similar, though they're probably more in the 100-120mpw range.
I would say 70-80mpw is the bare minimum one can run and expect to run well at 10k. I know 1500m specialists who do more than that most of the year.
Guppy wrote:
Is this a serious question? You think it's a coincidence almost all elite distance runners put in 100+mpw? I know an elite marathoner who consistently does "only" 100-110mpw because he's "never been a high mileage guy." A lot of elite marathoners are putting in 120-150mpw, at least during some times of the year. Most 10k guys are similar, though they're probably more in the 100-120mpw range.
I would say 70-80mpw is the bare minimum one can run and expect to run well at 10k. I know 1500m specialists who do more than that most of the year.
The OP didn't say you shouldn't run more than 70-80 mpw, he was asking if there is a point of diminishing returns, which science has shown to be true. The benefits of training are very dramatic when increasing from 20 to 50 mpw or 40 to 70, etc. but are far less dramatic when going from 70 to 100 or 100 to 130. There is a point of diminishing returns, where the smaller improvements from increasing your mileage may not be worth the injury risk for some runners. Of course dedicated runners will try to do as much mileage as they can without getting injured and they will do better running 120 per week instead of 80, if their body is able to handle it. Part of talent is the ability to train more and adapt to that training; some people don't have that talent. Not everyone running over 100 miles per week will do better.
Also, most world class 10k and up runners are doing well over 100 miles per week, but there are many, many examples of guys doing lower that have had considerable success, such as Steve Jones running about 80 mpw and training mostly for the 10k when he ran his first world marathon record at Chicago.
Yes, there is a point of diminishing returns and each athlete needs to find out what works for them as they go beyond 80 miles per week.
Correct. 70mpw is around the point at which runners tend to get the most bang for their buck. After that, there are still gains, but they are smaller and level off somewhere over 100mpw for most. More is better, but only to a certain point. I would think almost everyone could handle 90mpw though. I was training at that much (2-3 workouts per week) as a freshman in college without any trouble. I built up to that though. It can take a while to adjust to higher mileage.
I went from 2:56 in the marathon at 70 mpw average to 2:29 at 95 mpw average... In 10 months. Granted, I also lost 15 pounds, but overall, those extra 20 miles per week I did were more than just a "psychological" boost...
Novo wrote:
I went from 2:56 in the marathon at 70 mpw average to 2:29 at 95 mpw average... In 10 months. Granted, I also lost 15 pounds, but overall, those extra 20 miles per week I did were more than just a "psychological" boost...
This is anecdotal evidence that just doesn't apply to very many people. There are very, very few people that could drop that kind of time going from 70 to 95 mpw.
A diminishing return is still a return, especially when you're talking about trying to go from 2:20 to 2:18.
asdgfh wrote:
Novo wrote:I went from 2:56 in the marathon at 70 mpw average to 2:29 at 95 mpw average... In 10 months. Granted, I also lost 15 pounds, but overall, those extra 20 miles per week I did were more than just a "psychological" boost...
This is anecdotal evidence that just doesn't apply to very many people. There are very, very few people that could drop that kind of time going from 70 to 95 mpw.
True, I was just using me as an example that for some, running more than 75 mpw is much more than a psych boost and is very productive... For others, such as those more prone to overtraining injuries, it may not be... It's all dependent on the person
asdgfh wrote:
Novo wrote:I went from 2:56 in the marathon at 70 mpw average to 2:29 at 95 mpw average... In 10 months. Granted, I also lost 15 pounds, but overall, those extra 20 miles per week I did were more than just a "psychological" boost...
This is anecdotal evidence that just doesn't apply to very many people. There are very, very few people that could drop that kind of time going from 70 to 95 mpw.
How much was your 5k-10k times improve? If you were a 15:30 5k runner than that should be expected with the extra mileage. If you were barley break 18 and improved your overall fitness from 5k-Marathon than that is out of the ordinary and you did good.
I assume that comment was directed towards me. My race times across every distance improved. Along with my 2:56 marathon, I also ran 17:30-17:40 5ks and 36:30 10ks..... My times now along with the 2:29 marathon are low-15 5k and likely 31:30ish 10k, though I haven't raced one in many months, and a 1:10 half
Novo wrote:
I went from 2:56 in the marathon at 70 mpw average to 2:29 at 95 mpw average... In 10 months. Granted, I also lost 15 pounds, but overall, those extra 20 miles per week I did were more than just a "psychological" boost...
Much of that improvement was from losing the 15 pounds. That is a lot of weight to lose that will dramatically improve your race times. Your extra 25 miles per week obviously helped in the weight loss.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that for most people there will be improvement going from 70-100 mpw, it is just less dramatic improvement than going from 40-70. Thus the term "diminishing returns", as opposed to no returns at all. For many, the extra mileage is a weight loss thing and a psychological boost, along with some gains in fitness.
I was one that did not benefit from a mileage increase, winning an NCAA D1 regional (districts back then) averaging about 62 miles a week (with a high of around 80) and then not even finishing in the top ten the next year after increasing the mileage to an average of 82 miles a week (high just over 90). My body did not have time to adapt to the extra mileage, although given more time it cetainly might have. My diminishing returns were actually negative returns, at least for that season.
Your very right about much of that comes from the drop in weight. If for every pound I lost, I dropped 2 seconds a mile, that accounts for 13 minutes in my marathon time... However, there is still the other 13-14 minutes to account for. That's dropping from low-mid 2:40s to 2:29 in 10 months... Which still has alot to do eith the increased fitness as a direct result of high mileage
Novo wrote:
Your very right about much of that comes from the drop in weight. If for every pound I lost, I dropped 2 seconds a mile, that accounts for 13 minutes in my marathon time... However, there is still the other 13-14 minutes to account for. That's dropping from low-mid 2:40s to 2:29 in 10 months... Which still has alot to do eith the increased fitness as a direct result of high mileage
What if the runner had kept running 70 mpw and dropped 15 pounds? I think the improvement would have been the same. There is absolutely no evidence it's from the mileage increase considering he's only talking a 10 month training window, which you refer to as "a direct result of high mileage." Not really.
So your trying to say that a near 30 minute PR, and not a 4:00 to 3:30.... But nearly a 3:00 to a 2:30 mind you... Was all from a measly 15 pounds of weight and didn't have anything to do with increased miles per week?
Your idiocy astounds me and your the reason why people on these boards shouldn't take advice from anonymous posters... Because ,any of them are morons like you
there is not only the mileage you are doing currently; there is also the work you put in in the previous cycle. Both count. And with diminishing returns, the suggestion is that it's not worth the extra work, but the gains are still quite significant and if your goal is to maximize your potential, then you do what it takes.
I want in on this wrote:
So your trying to say that a near 30 minute PR, and not a 4:00 to 3:30.... But nearly a 3:00 to a 2:30 mind you... Was all from a measly 15 pounds of weight and didn't have anything to do with increased miles per week?
Your idiocy astounds me and your the reason why people on these boards shouldn't take advice from anonymous posters... Because ,any of them are morons like you
You obviously have no idea how training works. I feel sorry for you. Can you prove that had the runner ran 70 mpw and lost 15 lbs he also would not have had that improvement? No, you cannot. Buddy, distance running is for the long haul. It's what you do day in and day out for years. Increasing from 70 to 95 mph over a small 10 month period is not going to make miracles happen. Try to learn some distance running. The problem with American distance running is that posters like you think there is this magic trick or thing you can do to suddenly improve. This is nonsense. It is far better to run 70 mpw continuously for 300 weeks vs. ups and downs, burn outs and injuries straining for that magical 100 mpw which won't do anything for you. Think.
One other thing. It seems as though everyone is discounting any credit or benefit from the 70 mpw. Training consistently over a long period of time at 70 mpw can yield large PR's considering it is a cumulative effect. I'm confused as to why everyone views this situation as though the 70 mpw the runner is doing contributes nothing to the PR, but only and suddenly when 95 mpw's are introduced?
I agree with those that say there isn't any way to tell if it was the loss of 15 lbs. AND running 70 mpw or the increase to 95 mpw. There is a lot of opinions but not enough evidence to determine this. I think the OP needs to give more details, but 10 months isn't long at all.
Distance running is not for the long haul. If you do not change your training, you will pretty much run the same times every year.
No, not really. You can do the same training and just make it faster as you get better. Eventually you may need to change it up, but there've been plenty of successful runners who changed very little of their training throughout their careers.