People always get obsessed with that miles per week measure. Remember that is just the distance you ran in that week. On it's own it doesn't indicate how fit you are.
That may well be the case if running more didn't have a physiological effect on your body. But who would've thought? Running more actually makes you a much better runner.
As this study found, "total distance run" was the variable that most strongly correlated with world-class distance running performance.
Casado, A, Hanley, B, Santos-Concejero, J, and Ruiz-Pérez, LM. World-class long-distance running performances are best predicted by volume of easy runs and deliberate practice of short-interval and tempo runs. J Strength Cond...
People always get obsessed with that miles per week measure. Remember that is just the distance you ran in that week. On it's own it doesn't indicate how fit you are.
That may well be the case if running more didn't have a physiological effect on your body. But who would've thought? Running more actually makes you a much better runner.
As this study found, "total distance run" was the variable that most strongly correlated with world-class distance running performance.
Thanks. I read that article a while back and thought I'd bookmarked it. I wanted to put it on this thread but evidently I did not bookmark it. Now I will.
I actually dropped 37 seconds off my old 5k personal best by lowering my mileage to 45-50 miles a week and not doubling. I also did 1 quality workout prior to setting a new personal best. My take on high mileage is that it only helps you when you are looking to get fit or if you train for extremely long races like the ultras. A 16 min 5k runner does not need high mileage of running (1 hour a day is enough) but their volume of training should combine both speed and endurance workout. Don't listen to social media influencers on high volume=faster 5k. A 16 min 5k runner should follow the 70/30 rule which means most of their running is aerobic but 30% is race pace or faster. The rule will change when they become a 14 minute 5k runner. So my take again is that you need to GRADUALLY build up your mileage while also building your speed base. This will make you an efficient runner among distances from the 800 to 10,00m.
Here's a great read about Bakken's ideas on mileage with a summarizing quote
"LL: What's a bit exciting is to talk a bit about what you came up with. What you think is best now, because you've probably thought different things along the way. You have a medical background and many professional aspects of this. I thought we should go through some aspects of training and what you think is good. We can start with volume. What does it mean, and what thoughts do you have about how much should actually be trained and run? MB: You're clearly dependent on running a lot of volume. What's interesting is whether it's… Whether it's partly a question of how much volume during a running career up to a certain point. Because what I saw at the end of my career, that I could get away with fewer kilometers and be in correspondingly the same shape. And I think it has to do with running economy, and especially stabilizing ligaments and tendon structures and building up elasticity in the musculature, it's about a property that you train up, and then you won't need as much later in the career. You see the same with the Kenyans, who have run a lot, and some of them eventually have lower kilometer numbers than many Western runners. But I think that weekly volume is important. It's difficult to run at least anything much under 160 km [100 mi] to become a good long-distance runner. Somewhere between 160 and 220 km [100–137 mi] is closer. But probably you can have parts of the year lie lower when you become more established. I think, then."
Located in the "Mileage: how much is necessary?" section
I think the point is being missed here. When you start getting old, the mileage takes more of a toll on you structurally. So, while adding mileage might help a bit aerobically, it’s more than off set by the physical toll it takes on the body.
You have to apply context. Apparently, the coach at Harvard believes that easy runs should be done at six minute pace. This approach has produced one of the best distance runners to come out of college in a while, Graham Blanks.
However, the coach is working with very young athletes who have no wear and tear on their bodies. And by the time they hit 22 they’re gone. So the coach doesn’t have to worry about longevity.
like a lot of people said there isn't a magic number, but I do think it is true that running somewhere around 100mpw sits at the very edge of sustainable for many people and thus represents a good place to train if they want to get the most out of themselves.
I think it's more about the individual though. Lots of experimentation with different systems/volume and looking honestly at what works the best. Do a few blocks changing something small each time and you'll probably be doing better training at the end of your experiment than at the beginning.
People always get obsessed with that miles per week measure. Remember that is just the distance you ran in that week. On it's own it doesn't indicate how fit you are.
That may well be the case if running more didn't have a physiological effect on your body. But who would've thought? Running more actually makes you a much better runner.
As this study found, "total distance run" was the variable that most strongly correlated with world-class distance running performance.
In the social media era, everyone wants to be a guru. This leads to them trying to distinguish themselves by saying the time tested approaches are really wrong.
You see this in boxing. The great champions thoughout the eras all did roadwork but some Instagram S&C coach says it’s a waste of time.
Here's a great read about Bakken's ideas on mileage with a summarizing quote
"LL: What's a bit exciting is to talk a bit about what you came up with. What you think is best now, because you've probably thought different things along the way. You have a medical background and many professional aspects of this. I thought we should go through some aspects of training and what you think is good. We can start with volume. What does it mean, and what thoughts do you have about how much should actually be trained and run? MB: You're clearly dependent on running a lot of volume. What's interesting is whether it's… Whether it's partly a question of how much volume during a running career up to a certain point. Because what I saw at the end of my career, that I could get away with fewer kilometers and be in correspondingly the same shape. And I think it has to do with running economy, and especially stabilizing ligaments and tendon structures and building up elasticity in the musculature, it's about a property that you train up, and then you won't need as much later in the career. You see the same with the Kenyans, who have run a lot, and some of them eventually have lower kilometer numbers than many Western runners. But I think that weekly volume is important. It's difficult to run at least anything much under 160 km [100 mi] to become a good long-distance runner. Somewhere between 160 and 220 km [100–137 mi] is closer. But probably you can have parts of the year lie lower when you become more established. I think, then."
Located in the "Mileage: how much is necessary?" section
I think the point is being missed here. When you start getting old, the mileage takes more of a toll on you structurally. So, while adding mileage might help a bit aerobically, it’s more than off set by the physical toll it takes on the body.
Life takes a toll on you as you get older and sure, running high miles will too eventually. But once you've done the big miles and gotten the benefits from doing it you don't lose those benefits and can run well on fewer miles.
I think training can take a toll as a runner ages, but some do well with volume at advanced age. The Canadian marathoner, Whitlock, would run high volume in marathon prep. Also, I remember Barry Magee did a full Lydiard buildup before running a marathon just after turning 50. I can't quite remember the time, but it was impressive, maybe 2.27?
I had modest performance in college (mid to low 16s), we only ran 50-60mpw. In grad school I ramped up to 100-120mpw and found I was a strong responder to volume. I was better at longer distances so focused on the marathon, but got my 5K into the 14:40s without training specifically for it.
Then I got a house, job, and a kid in short order, but I was able to hold 70-80mpw. No matter what I did, all that did was slow down the rate at which I lost fitness compared to my peak. Very disheartening and ended my attempts to run any more PRs.
John Walker only hit 100 miles per week but wasn't comfortable and self modulated to 85 miles per week, but that is solid average. the mainstay was like 12 miles in 70 minutes ish per day at 440 to 530mile pace often with hllls. then a long run on the weekend. with a training partner like Dixon or Scott, there would be wild quality in there, so those guys had a lot of fun.
So what is the point?
The athlete had to work with 85 mpw, and that was good enough for OG gold, world record, and 100 sub 4 minute miles, and those were mostly way under 4, not to mention a similar amount of 1500s.
Snell was fixated on the 100mpw. like a mental battle, love hate, for confidence he needed the number, of course the base work laid the foundation, and to mention it was followed by intermediate hill work, springing, fartlik, quality before the track work. Snell would throw in speed work instead of some distance and not tell Lydiard. The intermediate period was around 85 miles a week ish, and the track work dropped down to 50 miles,. racing was even less.
On another front, if you are running well and healthy and full time, 100 mpw isn't that much. If you're not going so well, and working 40 or more hours it can be drudgery. I experienced both, as if entirely different people.
On holiday on 90 mile beach, I'd run beside the surf solo for 2 hours every day, it was so fresh and beautiful, i was excited by lunch time that the run was only a few hours away.
In the winter, there was a bad patch, where it seemed difficult to lift the legs in 15 milers, it was pure uninspired drudgery.
If you hit 100mpw at some point that is money in the bank.
At the end of the day, if you're not feeling it, you have to back off. just run 50 to 70 minutes per day, or two time 30 minutes or some such. when you start to feel it, you can attack the hills here and there,
it might be good to re mention, that the whole point of the base period with mileage is to improve, maximize vascularity, and aerobic function.
as the season progresses, and there is less distance runs, and red line race fatigue, the athlete actually gets "out of aerobic shape" as we know.
the point being,. the 100 mpw is a tool for aerobic, but the exact best amount can vary, for best adaptation depending on the individual,. and also the point in the career. i go with the idea that after a solid foundation is laid for aerobic with mileage, there is muscle memory. and you don't need as long for base work to get it back. that is a nice fundamental. and your time can be better used on specific work.
at the end of the day, having a great training environment, and group, that is most important, for the program. make no mistake, competitive athletes will always run hard and you have to tone them down from time to time.
if you're not self motivated enough, well. your training partner or coach can privide incentive.
Snell only averaged 100 mpw once for 10 weeks in 1964. He said it had always been the goal, but this was the first time he achieved it.
interesting. and maybe stand corrected.
i recall Snell from various sources, himself, coach,.Walker, etc. hitting 100 on several occasions, but not often, like 3 weeks in a cycle or some such.
doesn't affect the takeaway, that 100mpw isn't the be all and end all.
