" Up your mileage.. " ???

Sweet Jesus...

No, I`m not Jesus , the resurrected Messiah , haha! )) I`m COACH J.S , The Magic wizard ..... :)

Ahaha! I like your humor JS.

NW

It's a basic physiology. Mitochondrial mass is a low hanging fruit in training. That's why there is a concept of base training, where you primarily build up mitochondrial mass (yes, also capillaries and aerobic enzymes and other stuff, but all those adaptations work in synergy, there's really no need to focus on specifics). These adaptations then allow to:

- train at faster paces, for longer
- recover faster (probably in part because more lactate is eaten by mitochondria)
- be safer at faster paces because guess what, low volume high intensity is risky

In short, with sufficient base your quality is of much higher quality. And that's on top of really being a totally different runner just by running sufficient volume vs low volume.

Yes, there's a law of diminishing returns in everything, so we can argue about what volume is really needed to get the best risk/reward ratio, but for most young runners I would guess it's more than 60 mpw and likely is between 80 and 100mpw. Obviously, it's something you need to carefully build up to. But that should be a focus, with a secondary focus on careful speed development (alactic sprints, etc).

Magic... it would be magic for Sammy to run a PB after 6 years.

It would be magic for you to run those masters world records you announced 2 years ago.

Well, even the great Canova stated that you can't produce mitochondria limitless. And more modern scientific shows on mitochondria is produced even at faster paces, not so many as in slower paces, but bigger and more effective. This is one of the explanations why it`s possible to reach individual optimal results on quite low mileage. Many runners and coaches are locked in the belief that there must be a separate buildup with a lot of mileage. It`s perfectly possible to perform a build up in parallell with simultaneously developing the quality.Low volume and too high intensity can be quite risky , but guess what, low volume and well calibrated intensity minimizes risks.

You're like the message board parasite...

Well, now you ended up a bit off the topic of the thread again but I`m sure Sammy.s chance to glory will come again. I`m age 62 now and I saw a woman at same age ran a masters world record at 200m 27 sec ......I`m still fast in my legs , just have to build endurance ......hope I can attack the world records at 5000/ 10000m in the age 65-69 group.I`m on my way.......

Maybe you should up your mileage.

It's not off topic. Quite the contrary.

You claim to be this amazing wizard of a coach, you never accept any criticism, according to you no coach is better than you but!

You have been coaching Sammy since 2015. He ran his HM PB in 2015, his marathon PB in 2016.

For a coach who is as good as you claim to be this is a complete failure.

So when you come on here claiming to be so amazing, it's only natural that you get questioned on your lack of results.

You don't have to 'max out' at a low mileage before bumping up, you just have to get used to that amount of mileage. If you can't run successful workouts because you're too tired from doing a certain mileage then you should not increase, you should stay there until you can run appropriate workouts with the volume. And again, we're talking about young athletes. They are going to naturally improve their speed for multiple years, they can do the same thing and they will improve. You're telling me they should not increase their mileage at all during that time? Rubbish. I became a state champion and national level runner, tons of people were beating me in middle school/freshman year. Then I started running and training more than any of them, I passed them all. I completely attribute that to me running more than them, I didn't even run very many workouts. Simply running a lot of distance makes you good at distance running. It shouldn't be shocking. Run a lot, you get better at running far.

There is no statistic available but i would say that 95 of 100 athletes with 12h would beat the 6h guys. Of course the 12h athletes do also some intensity stuff.

I am often in this volume threads, as the greatest mistake and wrong information we can provide to young runners is to claim that it works also with low volume. It doesn't.

Jakob and Blummenfelt both olympic Gold Medal winner do relative high volume.

It's actually correct that high intensity training leads to higher quality mitochondria. Not just bigger, but also with more stable membranes. The only problem here is how this happens: basically by killing weaker ones. They literally blow up, I think because of hydrogen ions producing water inside of them. So if you don't want to end up with a small number of very resilient mitochondria, you need volume to trigger new mitochondria creation and then rinse and repeat. Survival of the fittest mitochondria! You can definitely maintain mitochondrial mass on lower volume if you up the intensity. That's how most pros train "in season". But we're talking about going from 100mpw to 80-90, not 50-60.

I don't agree with you of course. You can never get 12h runners training as effective as 6h runners with 24 hours recovery between sessions. The problem is just you got to know how best to train the 6h runners to get them optimized. The greatest mistake and wrong information we can provide to young runners is to claim there should be a need of high mileage to succeed as a middle/ longdistance runner. Jakob didn`t run high mileage in young age.

That is why competent coaches use doubles.

Woow! This was actually very interesting Darby. I can follow you as long as you told high intensity training leads to higher quality mitochondria........then you start to speculate about " The war of the mitochondrias" ? ( excuse me but when I wrote this I had to laugh for myself a short moment )) ). Well, there is no contradictions between mitochondrias of different types. It`s like a collaboration where the different types have their part in the energy process. In a low mileage system I talk about the both different types of mitochondria needed are produced highly efficiently.

Well, I think you got what I ment but I admit I could have expressed myself more clear and written " You can never get 12h runners training as effective as 6h runners who gets 24 hours recovery between sessions"

Post a link to the study, so we can read it. Just paraphrasing "some scientific study says xyz..." proves nothing, unless you allow us to evaluate the source.

I think you read me wrong. There's no different types of mitochondria and they obviously don't have a war with each other (that's a bizarre thought). It's pretty simple: intensity kills smaller and weaker ones, so the average remaining mitochondria is bigger and stronger.