That's circular logic. Millions of people run but only small percentage are elite. So if elites do high mileage but they only do it because their contemporaries also do, why would they move to high mileage if they were elite on low mileage? The high mileage had to come first.
Elitist runner wrote:
That's circular logic. Millions of people run but only small percentage are elite. So if elites do high mileage but they only do it because their contemporaries also do, why would they move to high mileage if they were elite on low mileage? The high mileage had to come first.
You are right there.I should have written what I ment ; Runners that isn't elite ....and so on.
Hello Mr Gambinus,
I would not do to much threshold (Don't really talk about thresholds actually). Main focus in preparation would be:
Endurance runs (max 14km's 8-9 miles)
Tempo intervals around 1.5mmol with a max volume of 12km's (for instance 5*2km Recovery 60")
Anaerobic capacity workouts mixed with aerobic capacity (for instance 5*1200m R2', 200m in 800m pace, 1K a little slower than Tempo of intervals around 1.5mmol)
Volume around 50-65 miles a week
Coming towards the "race" I would do 3 weeks where I put some "5K-training" for instance 10*400m R200mJ RP 5K 1 week and the other week I would do aerobic power training in longer intervals, for instance 5*2K recovery 90" around 5-6mmol.
I see 13.19 and I'm thinking hurdles.
55 miles per week would be high.
OlympicRunningTeamCoach wrote:
Hello Mr Gambinus,
I would not do to much threshold (Don't really talk about thresholds actually). Main focus in preparation would be:
Endurance runs (max 14km's 8-9 miles)
Tempo intervals around 1.5mmol with a max volume of 12km's (for instance 5*2km Recovery 60")
Anaerobic capacity workouts mixed with aerobic capacity (for instance 5*1200m R2', 200m in 800m pace, 1K a little slower than Tempo of intervals around 1.5mmol)
Volume around 50-65 miles a week
Coming towards the "race" I would do 3 weeks where I put some "5K-training" for instance 10*400m R200mJ RP 5K 1 week and the other week I would do aerobic power training in longer intervals, for instance 5*2K recovery 90" around 5-6mmol.
Thanks alot, Tim! Going to experiment a little bit with this approach on my athletes.
1,5mmol is exactly what I referred to as "threshold". I previously prescribed 7x1km R1' at roughly this pace as the first session and hill reps or a few 200s at 1500m pace with 200m jog rest as the second session of the week during the first period and only 3-4 race specific sessions when approaching the race day. Especially with aerobically strong (say anaerobically weak) athletes I made the experience that too much anaerobic work burns them out quickly and performance stalls or even declines.
It makes peaking a little harder because they rely on their aerobic system a lot and you have to find the balance between just the right amount of cutting back volume to become fresh while staying high enough to not weaken their aerobic system.
I like to look at training volume from a time perspective. 55 miles per week for someone running 13:1x for 5000 is less than a hour of running per day. Compare that to other endurance sports. Elite cyclist often cycle 4+ hours a day, it's not uncommon for elite cyclist to train 24-30 hours per week. Yes, apples to oranges as far as one is weight bearing. But in the base phase, I don't think there is anything wrong with aiming for 2 hours per day of running. Yes there are many examples of people running fast on low mileage. But often we don't look at what they've been doing the last 10+ years.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25019608
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29326603
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096917/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12048333
But cycling, swimming, XC skiing, running, triathlons etc. These are all endurance sports. And when we look at produces the best results. We see all the same basic principles. 80-90 percent of the volume is low intensity. A general phase of just building up volume and fitness. And finally, peaking. That is increasing amount of race pace work. This is what Lydiard outlined 50+ years ago. Now people think we are more advanced and training has improved because we use more scientific terms. But when you take a step back and look at the big picture. It hasn't really changed. Am I saying you have to run a hundred miles per week? No. Lydiard didn't even say that. He hated that people just associated him with 100 MPW. There is so much more to him than just that. He just found that he and his best runners usually did the best around that number in the base phase. But the general thesis is the same rather you're only running 50 or 150 MPW. That is a general phase of building up your fitness and than peaking. Now you have people like JS denying this. Now you'll probably get in good shape if you do what he says to do. But you probably won't reach your true potential.
This.......It`s probably very good for an elite cyclist to do 4 + hours per day up to what that sport has demands on the
practitioner. But for a runner you have different demands when it comes to feet and legs and shock impact .
I have never denied that the high mileage phase systems work. How could I with thousands of world class runners
succeeded with that kind of system? But what you and so many must start to realize is that it can be done with much less
volume and with a linear system that improves all important factors for the result at the same time.
Now.......Many coaches and runners try to find the individual upper limit when it comes to volume to reach the runners true potential and don`t realize that it`s much smarter to try to find enough what it takes when it comes to volume to reach that optimum potential.
I’d like to add two readings for you.
1. I know Jim Spivey and I doubt he ever ran more than 60 mpw. Routinely he was in the 40-45 range and he did run 13:15. A rare talent but it’s certainly possible if you’ve been given the right genetics.
2. Without naming her, I used to date a Kenyan girl for a few years and a few years back. She ran 31 for the 10 and under 15:30 for the 5.
It took me a while to figure this out. To her, ‘training’ was defined as speedwork, fartlek, hills, timed runs, or drills. Any ‘easy’ run did not count as ‘training’ and was often ignored.
So she would say something like ‘last week I did 26 miles of training’. At first I’d think ‘okay I know you didn’t run on days it was raining since you claim your body cannot run in the rain, but still I know she ran more miles.
Then I soon learned that warmups and cool downs totaling 4 miles plus a few easy 20km runs (6:40-7:10 pace), and doubles 4-5 times weekly of 4-7 miles each - none of these counted.
So when I tabulated her true mileage, she was in the 65-80 range. Yet in her mind she was at 26. ?????
This debate springs up on LetsRun every month or so.
Some points I bring up:
* I expect that a lot of the benefits of high mileage come down to burning calories/fat. A runner who is naturally skinny such as Justin Knyght can more easily get away with 50 mpw while someone naturally bulky like Alan Webb needs 80+ mpw to keep from gaining too much muscle weight.
* Obvious your pre-existing aeorobic base is a factor in how much high mileage will add to your. Hence, stories about top triathletes who run 50 mpw and can break 14:00 5k
* High mileage usually comes in the form of doubles or triples which enforce a disciplinced lifestyle. No room for bachelor parties in Vegas, sitting at a desk all Saturday and Sunday writing TPS reports, etc.
HRE wrote:
There was a story in Runner's World a long time ago by a guy who knew Mike Boit when Boit was in grad school at Stanford. Boit asked the author if he'd like to do a six mile run with him the next day. The author agreed and went to Boit's apartment. They run for six miles at a manageable pace and the run ends up at Stanford's track where Boit goes on to run six miles at maybe five minute pace and then explains to the author that those six miles on the track were what he'd meant when he asked the author to do a six mile run with him. The run to the track was just a a warm up.
Story told and written by Joe Henderson.
jamin wrote:
This debate springs up on LetsRun every month or so.
Some points I bring up:
* I expect that a lot of the benefits of high mileage come down to burning calories/fat. A runner who is naturally skinny such as Justin Knyght can more easily get away with 50 mpw while someone naturally bulky like Alan Webb needs 80+ mpw to keep from gaining too much muscle weight.
* Obvious your pre-existing aeorobic base is a factor in how much high mileage will add to your. Hence, stories about top triathletes who run 50 mpw and can break 14:00 5k
* High mileage usually comes in the form of doubles or triples which enforce a disciplinced lifestyle. No room for bachelor parties in Vegas, sitting at a desk all Saturday and Sunday writing TPS reports, etc.
Don't forget to put the cover on your TPS reports
TTH wrote:
HRE wrote:
There was a story in Runner's World a long time ago by a guy who knew Mike Boit when Boit was in grad school at Stanford. Boit asked the author if he'd like to do a six mile run with him the next day. The author agreed and went to Boit's apartment. They run for six miles at a manageable pace and the run ends up at Stanford's track where Boit goes on to run six miles at maybe five minute pace and then explains to the author that those six miles on the track were what he'd meant when he asked the author to do a six mile run with him. The run to the track was just a a warm up.
Story told and written by Joe Henderson.
It was definitely not Joe's story. I think the author was a guy called Rich Kaarlgrad or some such thing. i could verify that by asking Joe but I know it wasn't his story and it definitely was not his style of writing.
MamothRunner wrote:
Hi all,
Via via I came to an account of a Belgian coach who is coaching most of the Belgian runners.
2 of them finished 4-5th on the 5K at Payton Jordan this year. Isaac Kimeli also ran against Jäger last year and was beaten in a sprintfinish.
His coach Tim Moriau posted the program of 1 of his guys that ran 13.19 at Stanford, averaging only 55miles a week!!
You can find the program on his instagram: moriautim
Let me think what you guys think about it, it seems to good too be true...
dunes runner wrote:
Said Aouita ran 50 to 70 miles a week, but most weeks were 50, 50, 50, 50 every week.
He never ran high mileage nor more than 10 miles at a time.
__________________________________________________________________---
North African trained in Italy with Italian coach............................ EPO
My too sense wrote:
I’d like to add two readings for you.
1. I know Jim Spivey and I doubt he ever ran more than 60 mpw. Routinely he was in the 40-45 range and he did run 13:15. A rare talent but it’s certainly possible if you’ve been given the right genetics.
2. Without naming her, I used to date a Kenyan girl for a few years and a few years back. She ran 31 for the 10 and under 15:30 for the 5.
It took me a while to figure this out. To her, ‘training’ was defined as speedwork, fartlek, hills, timed runs, or drills. Any ‘easy’ run did not count as ‘training’ and was often ignored.
So she would say something like ‘last week I did 26 miles of training’. At first I’d think ‘okay I know you didn’t run on days it was raining since you claim your body cannot run in the rain, but still I know she ran more miles.
Then I soon learned that warmups and cool downs totaling 4 miles plus a few easy 20km runs (6:40-7:10 pace), and doubles 4-5 times weekly of 4-7 miles each - none of these counted.
So when I tabulated her true mileage, she was in the 65-80 range. Yet in her mind she was at 26. ?????
Now........Two things ; 1) This about running fast and reach your potential on just low mileage has nothing to do with genetics! ALL runners respond positively to this kind of approach if the runner/ coach knows how to do it proper.
2) Maybe as you know I have coached over 100 Kenyan athletes in 4 years time and one thing struck me now when you talked this about that the Kenyans would not count part of what they ran into training. The real thing is that most Kenyan runners doesn`t care at all how many miles they have run! They just mostly do two runs per day( by time,not miles!) , two workouts per week , and mostly a long run in the weekend .....and most of them rest one day in the weekend
As others who have stated it could be a yearly average with higher weeks in the 70-80 range. But here is something else to consider. Why is there constant rhetoric on here that running 50-60 miles is low mileage? Some runners are just more gifted and don't need to waste time running 120mpw to run 13:20.
Well if you are very genetically gifted and can run 13:19 of off just 50-60 MPW. You can probably run sub or at least near sub 13 minutes for 5000 if said person spent a few months running 100+ MPW. Side note, Lasse Viren only averaged about 80 MPW yearly when he was in his prime in the 70s. Is that indicative of his peak mileage? No. He ran much more mileage at times. And was in BYU for a year, in which he ran sub 14 for 5000 in 69, with very little training, only averaged 38 km per week that year. Lasse Viren, very genetically talented. Probably could've ran 13:30 with little training. But do you think he would've won 4 gold medals in the 5/10 at the 72 and 76 games? I don't think so.
Subpar Coach JS disagrees with you claiming genetics have nothing to do with it.
Not the real Lasse Viren wrote:
Well if you are very genetically gifted and can run 13:19 of off just 50-60 MPW. You can probably run sub or at least near sub 13 minutes for 5000 if said person spent a few months running 100+ MPW. Side note, Lasse Viren only averaged about 80 MPW yearly when he was in his prime in the 70s. Is that indicative of his peak mileage? No. He ran much more mileage at times. And was in BYU for a year, in which he ran sub 14 for 5000 in 69, with very little training, only averaged 38 km per week that year. Lasse Viren, very genetically talented. Probably could've ran 13:30 with little training. But do you think he would've won 4 gold medals in the 5/10 at the 72 and 76 games? I don't think so.
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=74953https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6613364
We have already seen here from the Belgian coach Tim Moriau that one of his runners did 13:04 on this kind of low mileage (55-65 mpw) . It`s just a logical error link to think that this runner must be so much better with high mileage phase system. Of course it`s a must that a runner primarily got to have very good talent to reach 13:04 , but there is no need for more volume to run even faster.
forget mileage all together.
i mean write down what you do, for cause and effect, for fun and observation.
you do the work for adaptation to the event.
so adaptation requires the minimum effort to get that adaptation effect.
this is not a lazy thing. the minimum could be pretty hard.
in fact, quality work needs to make the lizard brain think you're life threatened, and you need to damage the system,
but only to the point where adaptation can take place.
and you repair in recovery. eat sleep, relax, massage, deep breathing, cross fit.
so you hit it hard and then wait until you recover to go again.
you just don't go this is speed day and just go like a moron.