Will I improve going from 75 mpw to 100 mpw if the extra 25 are all "junk"?

Do you have a link to your current training?

more aerobic stimulus= a better aerobic system. As long as you can handle it gradually work up to it. start with 20 minute shakeouts and start increasing them. You don't want to jump in and have it interfere with recovery. So the answer is yes, more easy miles, more aerobic efficiency.

Slower miles aren't always junk.

Is an 89 mile per hour fastball a good pitch?

The answer is, it depends on how that pitch fits in with all the other pitches in the sequence of pitches. If that's all you throw, no, it's not a good pitch. If it is mixed in with other speeds and locations and types of pitches, then it can be a great pitch.

So I agree with the posters who say it isn't junk- it isn't junk if you have the other elements that you need to improve, and the extra miles are gradually moving you into higher volume and more aerobic training.

When it comes to the marathon, then going from 75 to 100 will almost always help. There are a lot more variables in play at shorter distances, in particular what your running background is. But it's very hard to run a good marathon if you haven't prepared your legs to get pulverized. There's no substitute for time on your feet. I'm a bit faster than you, with a pretty high mileage background, and I still dropped over three minutes from my marathon PR when I went from 100 to 120.

"Slow" milage does the following:

Increase basic muscular and aerobic strength without excessive cellular

damage.

Burn fat for increase weight loss.

An opportunity to focus on relaxed and rhythmic running.

The problem is that it takes time to do these miles and requires a greater commitment.

Wow. A thread with nothing but good advice without the wisecracking. OP, everything you see here is spot on. olyrun says it best.

Yes, 10/10. good thread

Yes, good advice here, and olyrun says it well. I would make the increase and see what happens.

look @ context & long term wrote:

Is an 89 mile per hour fastball a good pitch?

The answer is, it depends on how that pitch fits in with all the other pitches in the sequence of pitches. If that's all you throw, no, it's not a good pitch. If it is mixed in with other speeds and locations and types of pitches, then it can be a great pitch.

So I agree with the posters who say it isn't junk- it isn't junk if you have the other elements that you need to improve, and the extra miles are gradually moving you into higher volume and more aerobic training.

+1 good analogy.

A good question.

Building gradually from 70 to 100 per week by adding some easy recovery runs should almost certainly help you in the marathon. Perhaps 120 would help more; but maybe not. At some point there are diminishing returns. Depends on other factors -- job, sleep patterns, your individual response to training, etc.

As my old college coach told me almost 40 years ago, you need to build a bigger aerobic base if you want the pyramid of your training to go higher. Think of a pyramid with various levels, aerobic, marathon pace, anaerobic threshold, sprint, etc. I'm simplifying, maybe not using the current technical terms, I am not a coach or physiologist, just a guy who has trained at high levels.

A wider aerobic base is helpful when you want to build a taller pyramid. It could be a good start toward helping you prepare for the kind of training needed to run 2:18 or whatever your life goal might be.

Good luck

don't we all have a genetic limit where more miles just don't improve anything or the gains become so tiny vs effort and injury risk?

curious what your previous PR was before 75mpw since I am at 60mpw and not really feeling any improvement - I think my HR is going down for the same speeds but it is hard to be sure because of so many outside variables - but 60 is the most I can do without doubles

I think going to doubles is itself a new stimulus.

Even if they are slow miles, getting only 8-12 hours between running sessions feels different than 24 hours between sessions.

Try it, see how it goes for you.

Different people respond differently, so I'd try it.

Personally, I found I benefited from averaging 85-90 miles a week for a few training cycles, but after a while found that I fared better back around 70. That being said I think I'm still benefiting from the time I spent putting in that volume even though 70 or so is a better balance for recovery for me now.

I think there's a lot to be said for varying your mileage week to week more than most people seem to. My best training cycles have been ones with a lot of planned undulation in volume, with something like a four week block of 100, 70, 100, 70, interspersed with a 50 mile easy week, then maybe a 100, 85, 75, 100 block and a 60 mile easy week, but still with a general trajectory of averaging maybe 85-90 miles a week in the base phase and coming down to around 50-60 for competition.

I also second the idea of doubles being inherently beneficial beyond just getting volume in. There's something about even just squeezing in an occasional light 30 minute run in the evening (I train in the morning) that makes me feel like I'm more loose and prepped for the next day. This is all anecdotal, but I find I actually feel more fresh when I'm doubling. These are all super easy doubles, though.

If there isn't some training effect behind the run, don't do the run.

If you're a 2:30 marathoner and you're out doing 20 extra miles a week at 8:00 pace, are you getting anything out of it?

Only you can answer this. Is doing a 5 mile run at 7:30 pace or slower as a 2:30 marathoner going to have any benefit at all?

If not, then you're just running to run and, possibly, negatively affecting your performance during later, more intense workouts.

srewrwer wrote:

If there isn't some training effect behind the run, don't do the run.

If you're a 2:30 marathoner and you're out doing 20 extra miles a week at 8:00 pace, are you getting anything out of it?

Only you can answer this. Is doing a 5 mile run at 7:30 pace or slower as a 2:30 marathoner going to have any benefit at all?

If not, then you're just running to run and, possibly, negatively affecting your performance during later, more intense workouts.

All my research has led me to believe this junk miles (running too slow of a pace to get any benefits) sentiment is false. I agree that if you were overtraining, that running more miles is a negative, but I don't think that's what we are talking about here. All the american 2:20 marathoners will tell you that you are wasting your time while running 8 minute miles while sub 2:10 east Africans are running some mileage at 9:00 pace.

Old Walker wrote:

Wow. A thread with nothing but good advice without the wisecracking. OP, everything you see here is spot on. olyrun says it best.

I was gonna take a swing at the baseball metaphor but decided not to because this is a good thread.

Why not add in another high quality session?

I found that adding doubles paid off really well. Just 2 or 3 doubles per week nice and slow coupled with some solid stretching were great for recovery and also got my legs really comfortable running hard for a long time. Huge payoff for me. I'd recommend it, but don't overdo it right out of the gate. Because the miles are nice and slow, it is easy to overtrain using doubles without realizing how worn out you are until it is too late.