What percentage of your potential could you achieve by just running more mileage?

Depending on your genetics, I would guess 60-90 % of your potential.

I think if you continue to up your "easy" pace as your fitness improves then 80-90%. I think where a lot of runner plataue with easy running is they maintain the same easy pace even though they have improved as a runner. Add in Strides and maybe a few hill sprints and I think that number is closer to 90%+

Depends upon your event. For 100m, more mileage probably is a net negative, for ultras, 100% of your potential could be reached.

Depends on your event. These are my thoughts.

Mile: Get up to 50-70 mpw, then specific workouts is where you make the gains

5k: 70-90 mpw, then specific workouts is where you make the gains

10k: 90-110 mpw, then specific workotus is where you make the gains

half marathon/marathon: 100-130, then the workotus make the gains.

If you're under these thresholds and you consider yourself to be a runner of that event, I believe getting up into those thresholds whith a training plan of just running a good effort every day (running faster than recovery day pace) is more beneficial than running a lower mileage with good workouts in an organized training plan

You can’t outrun your aerobic capacity, so the more you can run and increase that capacity the longer you can comfortably run at near max speed

With no workouts you would never improve hogh end conditioning so your easy pace would stay the same but you’d hold it for longer and you’d never build any real fitness beyond your baseline level of basic fitness. You’d essentially be training like a 28 minute 5k runner or 5 hour marathoner so I’d say you’d reach much less than 70% of your potential.

So wrong, workouts are overrated. Mark Nenow ran 27:36 with virtually no workouts, all mileage. He added some workouts when he got down to 27:20 but you guys wouldn't even consider them workouts because the pace of his reps were 15-20 seconds slower than his 10k race pace. He would do mile repeats at 4:40 per mile. He also ran a 13:18 5,000 off of these workouts. Now he ran his mileage (as fast as 5 minute per mile pace at times) but he didn't do gut wrenching intervals at 5k race pace. So to answer the original question, he got to 99% of his potential by just running mileage. Now you might say that his potential was faster than 27:20 and he never reached it because he didn't do typical workouts. Keep in mind the world record at that time was 27:13 so he wasn't far off. Even if you think his potential was 27:00 that is only 2% faster than his mileage only 27:36.

Genetics, end of story.

99.9999% of people need a few yeats of solid workouts to get anywhere close to their potential.

Genetics plus years of aerobic development, end of story. Not to mention you aren't answering the OP's question. Also, Nenow had talent for sure but he was only a 4:20 - 9:20 guy out of high school ( I know, ran one year, wrestler etc.).

So to answer the original question.

Let's take an athlete not quite as talented as Nenow. He (OK, me) ran 15:15 for 5k (track) in February with no "workouts" just mileage, he then added workouts and improved to 14:40 (track) by May. The improvement is pretty significant but in terms of percentage it is only 4%. So to answer the OP's question you can reach roughly 95% of your potential off of just mileage. The part you guys usually miss is that you think you can replace putting in the aerobic mileage by doing workouts, it doesn't work that way. You need the 95% before you can add the extra 5%. So 99.9999% of people need years of aerobic development (mileage) to get anywhere close to their potential.

Genetics, end of story.

99.9999% of people need a few yeats of solid workouts to get anywhere close to their potential.

Rez

And the WR is now 26:17. Of course he could have run faster if he trained smarter. Who is to say he couldn't have run under 27?

83%

YMMV wrote:

Depends upon your event. For 100m, more mileage probably is a net negative, for ultras, 100% of your potential could be reached.

This the correct answer

So, for high school kids running 800-5000, there will always ne a need for faster stuff r adults who go 10k to Marathon......not so much

You can always play that game about anyone. Who is to say he could have run under 27?

If mileage was the answer to everything then why aren’t these high mileage ultra marathon moms dominating the 5K?

Would you advise a 22 minite 5k runner who is running 30 mpw at 9:30pace to run 90 mpw at 9:30 pace and somehow thhey will miraculously break 17 in the 5k after a few years of doing this?

Most people need workouts to build the capacity needed to actually benefit from high milage, most people would get injured doing 90 mile weeks at any pace slower than 8-8:30 because their stride would not open up properly leading to injury and possibly overtraining due to the amount of stress amd unnatural tension on the body thus providing minimal physiological benefit. Not everybody has the aerobic capacity to make an efficient running pace their easy pace. You have to be already FIT to handle and benefit from high mileage and most 15 minute 5k guys are so talented out of their backsides to the point where just looking at a pair of running shoes would get them way fitter and faster than 99.9% of the population could aspire to be in their lives with any amount of training.

So there, most people wouldn’t even reach a small portion of their potential on mileage because a lot. Of people aren’t wired physically for mileage in the first place. The majority of average talented people would benefit more from running mile weeks between 30 and 60 miles and adding in very quality tempo and speedwork.

Rez wrote:

If mileage was the answer to everything then why aren’t these high mileage ultra marathon moms dominating the 5K?

Would you advise a 22 minite 5k runner .

Because they aren't doing that mileage at a steady pace. If you look into the training of people like Mark Nenow, Ron Clarke and others who did almost nothing but mileage. Even though they didn't do many workouts. They did a lot of their mileage at a very steady pace.

My point is their mileage is at a stimulating enough pace that they can respond without doing workouts, they are genetic freaks that will respond to just about anything (the same goes for anybody 15:x and lower)

I was a low 15 guy in my prime and even I’m not ignorant to this, I’m currently an old man who runs 19s.

Rez wrote:

If mileage was the answer to everything then why aren’t these high mileage ultra marathon moms dominating the 5K?

Would you advise a 22 minite 5k runner who is running 30 mpw at 9:30pace to run 90 mpw at 9:30 pace and somehow thhey will miraculously break 17 in the 5k after a few years of doing this?

.

I doubt they'd take such advice, but I certainly would advise that. I don't know if they'd break 17 but they'd be a whole lot faster than they are at 30 a week. And it wouldn't be because anything "miraculous" happened. It would be because they'd gotten a whole lot fitter.

Very interesting topic. So if someone runs 8 miles a day at 8:30 pace for one year, what could they race the 5k in all out ??

Rez wrote:

My point is their mileage is at a stimulating enough pace that they can respond without doing workouts, they are genetic freaks that will respond to just about anything (the same goes for anybody 15:x and lower)

I was a low 15 guy in my prime and even I’m not ignorant to this, I’m currently an old man who runs 19s.

They are genetics as far as reaching their potential base off of just mileage at a good clip. There are lots of people with genetics that make them not respond well to structure workouts.

Good thread on it: