" Up your mileage.. " ???

Mileage is pretty variable from person to person. It really takes a lot of experimentation and time to figure it out. Despite this board’s obsession with high mileage, there aren’t a ton of top pros that are competing on the track that are running much higher than 100 mpw. The marathon is a different beast entirely. But for the track, somewhere between 80-100 miles per week, around 10-12 hours per week, seems to be a good place for everything from the 1500 to the 10k.

Interesting, any source to that?

Mitochondria are a power source and they generate heat. There is the theory that mitochondria can overcook (getting to warm at high intensities) which destroyes them. Putting this and your theory together, bigger mitochondia could survive more likely, because they have more room to handle the heat generated.

I believe I got this explanation from one of the works of late Dr. Viktor Seluyanov. Will try to dig up the source and translate (it was in Russian).

Most of what you wrote is false. You have to stop reading only the research and other writing that supports your belief system, or better yet just find your way to a science library.

Whether a mileage increase is helpful has more to do with the athlete and event focus. Brazier doubling mileage is stupid, just as is a runner expecting to medal at 5000m or 10000m because he's run 12h/week is mercilessly misguided. And just for the record, 6h/week at 5:30/mi works out to ~66 mi/week, so moderate mileage there not low mileage.

Low mileage may be okay and work for some but it will never take you to the next level in running. I was able to get a sub 5 mile off of under 20mpw. Some would say that proves that low mileage works. But when i started doing 60mpw my times took off in all distances. Even if you get slightly worse at first from upping your mileage it is necessary to do so so that you can set a baseline of training volume that you can build upon with more intensty. It is hard to ever increase mileage when you are doing low mileage high intensity. It is so much better to take out intensity and then increase volume because it will set you up for more success in the future. That is why a base phase exists to allow you to get used to running higher mileage and that is why it comes first in a training cycle because volume is always the most important component of training.

When i moved up to 60mpw I had no intensity at all in there and i was running better than 20mpw with tons of intensity. Even at 35mpw with no intensity i was better than 20 with intensity.

The trick is to find a sweet balance between intensity and steady easy distance. Just enough steady easy running to back up the faster running.Then you get the best results.

the sweet spot is the maximum mileage i can handle without injury. not the amount where i can add a lot of intensity. if i can add a good amount of intensity to the volume i am running then i am not running enough. run as much mileage as possible

Eccentricities of the OP aside, I read his initial post as "develop some quality at lower mileage, then increase to moderate mileage; repeat."

Using specifics, what are peoples' thoughts on say, a 10th grader at 20mpw who runs 5:20 in the mile. Is there value in working on developing some footspeed at 20-25mpw in the winter before moving to 30-35mpw in the spring? Or would everyone's blanket suggestion just be to add 10 more miles at easy pace (presumably ~8min pace for this hypothetical athlete).

No Tempo Timmy. It`s not like that. You misunderstood what I`m saying. It`s not about adding a lot of intensity. It`s the same kind of perfect intensity as when a runner does high mileage and still put in intensity, but the difference is that the intensity in the low mileage program gets more effective due to more resttime and according to the well known enough effort + enough recovery = supercompensation. Your advice is unfortunately a big mistake done by many and often ends in injuries, overtraining and disappointment.

For this "hypothetical" ( lol! ) runner I would advice to slowly build up mileage by let`s say 1-2 miles per week. 20 mpw is really low-low mileage. When I talk about low mileage I refer to about a limit of 50-60 mpw as a final destination to reach your optimal performances.That`s a reference to most coaches and runners what low mileage is.

If you're defining low-mileage as 60mpw than I think that reframes a lot of peoples' responses.

If a younger runner (high school JR/SR racing 5k and below) is running 60mpw and not running particularly fast (open for interpretation based on the athlete), I would tend to agree that I'd like to experiment with higher quality a bit more before just assigning 10+ more mpw.

I am sure Jakob, Eliud, and all the many elite runners doing high mileage are very disappointed with their medals and fast times.

My personal opinion is that volume is less important than having your body prepared for workouts, races, and long runs. Especially as a more mid-distance-focused runner the places you get better are in workouts, being ready for races and long runs. Everything else should be focused on recovery. If you aren't feeling good for the hard efforts there's no real point in doing the mileage you're doing because those are what make you better more than anything. Summer training is different though, trying to get as many miles as possible during the base phase should be your biggest goal and at that point you just do what you can do consistently and comfortably without injury which can vary runner to runner.

None of what you said about mitochondria or their membrane stability is true.

This would depend on if you are talking about an 800 runner or a Marathoner.

Let's take a top-down approach and view this both imperically and anecdotally.

Volume (hours per week of training) is likely the number one determinant of running performance. Appropriate distribution and planning of intensity is a close-second, and I would argue that Recovery/Adaptability is likely an overlooked third.

Elite Runners w/ Unlimited Training/Recovery Time: can and should perform both High Volume and High Intensity during a Macrocycle appropriate to their phenotype and target event; examples abound, but we can summarize as 80-140mpw with some (weekly) addition of interval training, long runs, sustained fast runs, gym work, etc; High Talent + Hard Training + Intelligent Progression of Stimuli = Their Success

College Athletes and Less-Busy Post-Collegiate High Level Runners: probably will find an individualized balance of hard training vs recovery adaptations (and motivational constraint) somewhere between 65-105mpw with planned doses of Intensity; issues and performance limitations can arise with nutrition, pre-hab, sleep if not monitored respectfully

The Busy Adult Runner: Family, kids, a real job, a sense of duty apart from jogging around the neighborhood for Strava kudos... This is my favorite sub-group to coach because a PR or success story here is always hard-earned; typical volumes may range from 40-90mpw and Intensity needs to be very well-planned, interpreted appropriately by the athlete, and executed in a mature manner: general and chronic stress is a stimulus here unto itself, so training must adapt to a dynamic lifestyle and will show some big swings (modulation) in both mileage and Intensity from week to week; often, if the runner is experienced, identifying 2-3 days in a 10-14 day microcycle and protecting them as your hard and/or long days is a great approach that won't interfere with family and work; compromise is key! A hard 2hr+ run w/ a MP tempo + 30min of strength training one day may need to be followed by a stroller run of 30min so your spouse has more free time the next...

High School and Masters Runners: don't hurt yourself! Less is more. Focus on technique, strength, learning or re-learning your body's response to various stimuli... 35-75mpw with high modulation in intensity; run long, do short sprints ... Go very hard one day, go very easy for several days... Hit the gym, hit the bike or pool, take total rest days with frequency.

Both variables matter equally. You really can't take a partisan approach to predicting training responses with such black and white lenses. The only mistakes you can make are thinking that lack of talent will require compensation by completing huge (slow) volumes of training, getting too far away from any speed on your personal spectrum, and trying to emulate the training that worked for someone else.

As Canova says, "Bad training is not what you do... It's what you DON'T do."

Oh, and be sure you're running a fast sustained run of 45-75min with good consistency. I haven't seen that one fail to produce results yet...

Please do go on.

Mileage makes monsters. Even if you thrive at low mileage, you need decent volume in your training to reliably make it through rounds at various meets. Distance running is aerobic, and the best way to improve aerobic capability is a high volume of aerobic work. It's typically good for newer runners to start with lower mileage because it helps strengthen and reinforce their legs enough to handle longer miles. That's why you can't just jump in at high mileage and actually need to build up