Interestingly, David Costill showed there are no gains in aerobic capacity beyond 60-70 miles per week. So maybe we should be asking.... why do elites run significantly more than this? Metabolism, economy, enjoyment, muscle/tendon strength, race specificity for the marathon, etc. I suspect most people would have a near linear improvement in performance building to 8 hours per week. After that, it depends. For many, the injury risk outweighs the benefit!
Interestingly, David Costill showed there are no gains in aerobic capacity beyond 60-70 miles per week. So maybe we should be asking.... why do elites run significantly more than this? Metabolism, economy, enjoyment, muscle/tendon strength, race specificity for the marathon, etc. I suspect most people would have a near linear improvement in performance building to 8 hours per week. After that, it depends. For many, the injury risk outweighs the benefit!
I think at a certain point the benefit of running higher mileage (for track distances) is that it permits you to run harder workouts with lower RPE and faster recovery.
I’m running 40-45 mpw rn, a 10-12 mile working volume double threshold day isn’t gonna go over very well for me. 6x1600m at 5k pace also isn’t going to go over very well for me. Neither of those workouts would be particularly intimidating if I was in the kind of shape that comes with running 75-80 mpw instead.
And then, if I were running 75-80 mpw I’d have a really hard time sustaining 2 double T days, a track and hill sprint day, Vo2 work and a moderate quality long run as is typical for the ~100-110 mpw elite Norwegian style training model.
Running at a sustained 100+ miles per week makes running 20-25 of those miles at threshold, 3-4 of those miles anaerobically, and 6-8 of those miles around Vo2Max possible, and while the easy miles probably aren’t directly helping one maximize their 1500m-10,000m fitness, the ability to sustain the high volume of high quality work which is enabled by a body trained to be able to sustain 15-16 miles of running a day totally is.
That being said, most people aren’t even trainably able to sustain that workload, so it’s not for everyone. Most athletes probably do see peak running fitness in that 60-80 mpw zone.
Haile tried that at some point at the end of his career and could only manage 30min on 10k.
El Guerrouj after his retirement, tried a road 10k and could only manage 36min 10k only 3years after retirement! Use it or lose it it’s just simple as that!
Actually, Renato Canova has posted on LR about how runners with an older training age don't need the same aerobic volume in training.
He gave the example of Saif Shaheen (Stephen Cherono), who by the time he ran the steeple WR had been running at a high volume for many years. In the balance of diminishing returns and benefits of other training, Shaheen's training learned toward more threshold, race effort, etc, and less pure volume.
It's not as if an elite distance runner can go full low-mileage and stay on a plateau, but indeed the priority of volume can decrease as OP suggests.
I have seen Shaheen's training logs. When he broke the WR ha was doing 180 km weeks, even during summer track season. He was also doing 39 km long runs.
It's not fitness. It's building the engine. It's fueling the engine. It's reinforcing the frame. When you run high mileage, you are transforming the vehicle, your body, to be able to transport you from point A to point B as quickly as possible. High mileage is not about fitness.
Can you name one medalist from either the Olympic Games or world championships in the 10,000 or marathon in the *modern* era who only ran 60 mpw and never more than that? I’m not talking about the 800/1500 here…
Actually, Renato Canova has posted on LR about how runners with an older training age don't need the same aerobic volume in training.
He gave the example of Saif Shaheen (Stephen Cherono), who by the time he ran the steeple WR had been running at a high volume for many years. In the balance of diminishing returns and benefits of other training, Shaheen's training learned toward more threshold, race effort, etc, and less pure volume.
It's not as if an elite distance runner can go full low-mileage and stay on a plateau, but indeed the priority of volume can decrease as OP suggests.
I have seen Shaheen's training logs. When he broke the WR ha was doing 180 km weeks, even during summer track season. He was also doing 39 km long runs.
Guys are always doing more than they say they are too. Wasn’t it Coe who didn’t count morning runs or warmups/cooldowns?
Interestingly, David Costill showed there are no gains in aerobic capacity beyond 60-70 miles per week. So maybe we should be asking.... why do elites run significantly more than this? Metabolism, economy, enjoyment, muscle/tendon strength, race specificity for the marathon, etc. I suspect most people would have a near linear improvement in performance building to 8 hours per week. After that, it depends. For many, the injury risk outweighs the benefit!
I remember reading this in Peter Coe’s book some 35 years ago. And it probably is “good enough” for most runners. But I believe subsequent research has shown that running economy/capillarization/mitochondrial density all improve with much higher mileage. I believe Tim Noakes’ book teased this out a bit. And certainly Joe Vigil subscribed to this. Yes, there’s an increased injury risk with higher volume, and that is a factor.
I’m just saying no way is Mark Nenow a 27:20 guy, pre-super shoes too, off of 70 mpw. No way.
Actually, Renato Canova has posted on LR about how runners with an older training age don't need the same aerobic volume in training.
He gave the example of Saif Shaheen (Stephen Cherono), who by the time he ran the steeple WR had been running at a high volume for many years. In the balance of diminishing returns and benefits of other training, Shaheen's training learned toward more threshold, race effort, etc, and less pure volume.
It's not as if an elite distance runner can go full low-mileage and stay on a plateau, but indeed the priority of volume can decrease as OP suggests.
I have seen Shaheen's training logs. When he broke the WR ha was doing 180 km weeks, even during summer track season. He was also doing 39 km long runs.
1. The entire point is about how Renato coached him later on.
2. Nobody with a brain is saying low mileage is an option. What Canova said is that relative priorities can shift with an advanced aerobic training age, somewhat.
Can you name one medalist from either the Olympic Games or world championships in the 10,000 or marathon in the *modern* era who only ran 60 mpw and never more than that? I’m not talking about the 800/1500 here…