Can someone explain how doing more mileage makes one faster?

Bad Wigins wrote:

Obviously they run high volume. Maybe someone else runs even farther, but so what - the point of my post, which you obviously comprehended, was that they run high volume YET the high volume does NOT make them faster. Thus contradicting the premise that high volume makes one faster in the OP's title. Capiche?

That goes for the even ruder weasels who have trolled me so far. They run high volume, do they not? They are relatively slow, are they not? Therefore "doing more mileage makes one faster" is false. Suck on my logic and perish.

Ultramarathoners mostly train to race ultramarathons. That is the context for their training, so that should be how their training is judged. So you think ultramarathoners would be faster in ultramarathons if they trained less than they actually trained?

Comparing ultramarathoners to track/cross country or road racers doesn't make sense. You are comparing different populations, and also comparing faster non-ultrarunners to the average ultrarunner. I would actually expect the average ultrarunner to be faster than the average 5K road race runner if both raced a 5K. Have you seen average/range of finishing times at you local 5K?

It makes more sense to look at individuals and whether or not more mileage would help most individuals race faster. And that answer would be yes, because the average runner is has other priorities in life and have not optimized their training.

Not attacking you, doo doo, because you're partly right. But ultra-runners don't "suck at running." The Comrades Marathon in South Africa (approx. 56 miles) is a very prestigious race, and whoever runs an completes that ultra-marathon in a designated time is pretty darned tough. The course record for men on the "down" course (a net downhill) is 5:20:49. Every other year they change the direction of the course. The "up" course record (a net uphill) is 5:24:49. Alberto Salazar won the race in 1994, but he does not hold the course record.

The Western States 100 is the most prestigious ultra in the world. It's extremely tough and mountainous. Look up the history on that one.

In my opinion, someone does not have to run a sub-2:20 marathon or a sub-4:00 mile to be considered a "non-sucky" runner. Would you say that sprint cyclists are the only ones who are good at running, leaving out the "ultra" Tour de France? Think about it, and respect the best runners at every distance.

Er, cycling. Darn that keyboard again. :-)

In the beginning was the word and the word was Lydiard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03IWE3xWJY8

Bad Wigins wrote:

is that true? wrote:

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that ultra-marathoners "run more volume than anybody"?

Is "more than anybody" all that relevant to the point of my post, or are you just being anal?

Obviously they run high volume. Maybe someone else runs even farther, but so what - the point of my post, which you obviously comprehended, was that they run high volume YET the high volume does NOT make them faster. Thus contradicting the premise that high volume makes one faster in the OP's title. Capiche?

That goes for the even ruder weasels who have trolled me so far. They run high volume, do they not? They are relatively slow, are they not? Therefore "doing more mileage makes one faster" is false. Suck on my logic and perish.

You aren't making any sense. The fact that a group of people run high mileage and are slow does not mean that mileage does not improve speed. We don't know how fast a given ultra runner would be if they ran lower mileage.

Your statement that ultra runners run more than anyone was relevant because it would at least give you the beginnings of a logical argument. If you claim that group A runs more than group B and group A is not significantly faster than group B, you have a (still tenuous) argument that mileage does not improve speed. If you drop the claim that group A runs more than group B and you simply say "group A runs a bunch and they're still slow," you really don't have an argument at all. Slow compared to what? You haven't shown that high mileage doesn't make them faster than they would have been if they didn't run high mileage.

Your argument makes about as much sense as saying "spinach isn't actually good for you because people eat spinach in the U.S. and Americans are fat."

For someone who chimes in on so many science related topics, you really don't seem to have much of a grasp on data analysis and experimental design.

1. None of the ultra folks I know run more than 70 miles a week. Certainly the elites do, however.

2. The ultra folks I know are faster now than when they ran less. That doesn't mean they're "fast", but then most of us are not, and couldn't ever be with any training. Talent matters.

3. High volume - whatever that means for a given person - often makes one faster, but primarily increases work capacity to the point where truly hard workouts can be consistently tolerated. And that makes you faster.

I should have clarified that I mean hobbyist ultra-runners at large, not elites.

Obviously even within ultra running, high volume makes them run at a higher percentage of their top speed for even longer.

But comparing them and their training to track runners is asinine.

Thank you for asking this question. I was reading/thinking about it today and found the information posted very helpful.

I was wondering to myself if I crank up my miles to 70 a week in order to make a BQ attempt would the body hold? What if I drop most of my speed work and do LSD. I was concerned I would loose my speed in that scenerio, but from reading the posts the body would still continue to improve. Good info.

Shawn H wrote:

Add to that Pete Magill's Build Your Running Body. Great explanations of the physiology of running in there, plus so much more. Great book:

http://www.amazon.com/Build-Your-Running-Body-Ultramarathoners-Run-ebook/dp/B00IIXLKQY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415076751&sr=8-1&keywords=building+your+running+body

I second that. It really is a great book. The problem is that there's almost too much stuff in it to digest.

To get back to the main question, I once heard one of the Hanson brothers explain that the main thing you get from mileage isn't speed but speed endurance. That is, you take the speed you can already run, but only, for example, for 800m, and you build the ability to maintain that speed over a longer distance. (This is a paraphrase and not exactly what he said, but you get the idea.)

That explanation has always made sense to me.

CoachB wrote:

I'd agree with everything the Stache wrote except for the blood volume thing. RBC count can actually be lowered through distance training as cells are smashed into little bits as they pass through your feet which are pounding on the ground

http://books.google.com/books?id=WkArAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=RBC+loss,+distance+running&source=bl&ots=6nsE7zHkUC&sig=TBL3Ba2j9HTY08Q79A_iZHqmQ1s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gkJZVNv0DoX-iAKopoGAAw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=RBC%20loss%2C%20distance%20running&f=false

Indeed, and anyway, you can get all of those adaptions from low mileage anyway.

More mileage gives you more endurance, which can lead to more speed endurance and better recovery. Two essentials of training.