How do runners get so fast with so little volume?

COACH WIZARD 1 wrote:

tribike wrote:

I was watching the coffee club episode with Ben Flanagan, and he said that he ran a 61:48 off of 70mpw. That's probably under 8 hours of aerobic work a week. In any other endurance sport, that low of volume would be unthinkable! E.g. in XC skiing in the US, you need 600-700 hours to be competitive at the college level (and that is an extremely low level relative to the world stage).

How does one achieve aerobic development on such low volume? Do you substitute with a lot more threshold runs / intervals?

If one knows how to do it smart and effective it`s enough even with 50-60 mpw.

Pity you don't know how to do it

low IQ thread wrote:

Few are getting the point of OP's post.

I'm very ignorant about physiology, but I suspect the reasons are as follows:

1. Limited general aerobic fitness crossover between endurance sports. Ex: Most overestimate the importance of general aerobic fitness in their respective sport.

2. Runners are simply less aerobically fit than cyclists or other high volume aerobic sports.

3. Running impact breaks down the body, so optimal training is much less.

Empirically, you see triathletes getting fairly close to elite long distance runners. It may turn out to be that some amount of cross-training is very slightly better than 100% running for long distance running performance, in some people.

If "general aerobic fitness crossover" is limited, how do you explain pro runners who retain most of aerobic fitness through cross training while injured?

And if they can do that, why don't they do more cross training when they are not injured? Rupp was running 120mpw on the ground plus 25mpw on an underwater treadmill. But why did he cap it to 25mpw? Would he have got more fitness gain if he had done 50mpw or 75mpw on an underwater treadmill? It's not like recovery from general fatigue would be an issue, since he has plenty of time as a pro runner.

This also goes for other runners. Why don't they use underwater treadmills, antigravity treadmills, elliptical or whatever low impact training to supplement their running?

Didn't Farah or someone spend like 40% of his weekly training time on an elliptigo?

It's more like 1:3 to 1:4.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

And if they can do that, why don't they do more cross training when they are not injured? Rupp was running 120mpw on the ground plus 25mpw on an underwater treadmill. But why did he cap it to 25mpw? Would he have got more fitness gain if he had done 50mpw or 75mpw on an underwater treadmill? It's not like recovery from general fatigue would be an issue, since he has plenty of time as a pro runner.

This also goes for other runners. Why don't they use underwater treadmills, antigravity treadmills, elliptical or whatever low impact training to supplement their running?

I think this is the most interesting idea in this thread--are we aware of ANY pro runners who have made SIGNIFICANT use of "reduced gravity" running as a supplement to already moderate-to high mileage?

For example, Joe Klecker recently worked through a foot injury and spent the past few weeks using the Lever treadmill system. It got me thinking, what if he got back to his normal 100-100mpw week on the ground, but continued to use the lever for an additional 50-100mpw of "reduced impact" running?

This would get us closer to the OPs non-impact athletes putting in 20-30 hrs/week, but hopefully without the stress fractures and other traumatic overuse injuries. It would be boring as heck, but it seems amongst the type A achievers we find in competitive running, that someone would give it a try.

ezequiel_colorado wrote:

Didn't Farah or someone spend like 40% of his weekly training time on an elliptigo?

That was Meb. Mo and Galen frequently used an underwater treadmill that limits impact for a lot of their easy runs. On Athletics Club (and others) has a "zero G" treadmill where you strap into supports that again limit body impact.

there's no such thing as talent. yes some people might have genetic advantages, but hard work is what pays dividends.

ALH359 wrote:

It's more like 1:3 to 1:4.

So my 200+ mile bike rides were worth 1/3 to 1/4 that distance running?

You people are clueless.

snowdays wrote:

running is a lot more wear and tear on the body. you literally CAN'T run 300mpw in a useful way without destroying your body.

70-120mpw is optimal in the way that it's the most volume you can get while still doing effective quality.

you could run more with no quality but it would not be more useful than lower mileage and workouts.

I agree that 300mpw is going to destroy pretty much anyone's body, but why wouldn't someone do 70 mpw running and then another 15 hours on a bike or swimming? I think that once you hit 80mpw, most of the miles you're adding are there to build aerobic fitness, but you can only add so many miles before your body breaks. Why aren't athletes doing 80mpw + a ton of time on a bike to build more aerobic fitness? Or even 60mpw so you can get a lot of quality in, get some easy running in, and then grind out a ton of time on a bike to build aerobic fitness? Plus, at that point, would you not be recovering better because there's not the impact of running miles on your body?

I'm not here to argue, I've just always wondered why training doesn't work that way. If anyone has an answer I'd love to hear it.

hhtdp0 wrote:

When I ride my bike for 60 min my average heart rate was 140. Later I went for a 60 min run and my average heart rate was 129. I agree there is less impact so you cannot run as cycling but not 1 to 4 ratio. You can get a great workout in same amount of time if you don't coast and hold your watts. Possibly better cardio than running since you can go harder more often. Same goes with swimming as you can push harder with risk of injury. I come from a running background.

Nonsense. No way on Earth cycling is as strenuous as running. That’s mainly why cyclists exist.

Bad Wigins wrote:

It's because volume decreases on a cubic magnitude, while surface area decreases on a squared magnitude.

This means your very low-volume runners, like Bekele or 800+ GOAT Augustine Choge, have a higher relative surface area than a higher-volume runner like Ben True or David Rudisha.

This greater surface area per volume allows them to dissipate heat much quicker, a great advantage at all distances 5000 meters and up.

A true scholar i see

Peach Pit wrote:

Why aren't athletes doing 80mpw + a ton of time on a bike to build more aerobic fitness? Or even 60mpw so you can get a lot of quality in, get some easy running in, and then grind out a ton of time on a bike to build aerobic fitness?

Because running is not cycling, its not specific enough. In short:

With running you use different muscle groups as cycling and there happens different peripherical muscle adaptation. More/bigger mitochondrias, capillaries, carbohydrate stores etc.

Cycling is not sport specific enough. Thats why Kipchoge does not cycle and Lance Armstrong did not run during his pro cycling career. But you can cross train as non professional elite, some muscle groups are overlapping and it helps to recover other muscle groups not used then.

As the impact on the body is very high with running 500-600h/year seems to be the maximum for running, which is about half the amount of cycling.

because wrote:

ALH359 wrote:

It's more like 1:3 to 1:4.

So my 200+ mile bike rides were worth 1/3 to 1/4 that distance running?

You people are clueless.

Time spent cycling = 3 x Time spent running

i.e. 3 hour bike ride = 1 hour run

Your 200 mile bike ride, if it took you 12 hours, would be equal to about 4 hours running.

You have to watch out for muscle imbalances with too much cross training.

Have any of You went to lab tests?

There are no good reasons to run super high mileage. You can develop Your aerobic system close to max with 60-80mpw.

Runners who run more are likely messing up their hearth. It gets too big and then problems will start.

notstrangeatall wrote:

John Wesley Harding wrote:

Per year? What a strange metric.

Anyway, as others have provided: talent.

That's not a strange metric at all. It's used in most endurance sports not including running.

Yes, but you cannot equate the hours in one sport against another. As a rule of thumb that most recreational people use, for example, you require approx twice the time or 4 times the distance cycling vs running. Running is an activity that carries amongst the highest 'bang for buck' in terms of time.

Most people in fact train too much, because above 120km/week you get diminishing returns, and even negative returns

In my group are one young girl. She runs mostly 35-50mpw and her endurance is amazing. Despite not having speed(200m in 29-30s), she can run 9.21 3000m or 16.17 5000m.

because wrote:

ALH359 wrote:

It's more like 1:3 to 1:4.

So my 200+ mile bike rides were worth 1/3 to 1/4 that distance running?

You people are clueless.

You didn't just double down but you triple or quadruple down on an idiotic take. You aren't the only person here with experience in both sports.

just pointing out the obvious here wrote:

portsea57 wrote:

Well famously Seb Coe was a pretty low mileage athlete but he - or his father or coach George Gandy - thought that low mileage ( quality not quantity ) plus - and this is very important- a weekly strengthening work session in the gym was the way to go.

When Coe reported his mileage there were things he didn't include in the total. Warmups, cooldowns, who knows what else. If you believe him he says he was running 40 mpw or something. In those days there was hesitance among the Brit runners to let everyone know what they were really doing.

That is complete nonsense. In "Better training for distance runners" there are examples of Seb´s schedules and every single step is recorded.

Also, Marius Bakken is the only person (to my knowledge) outside the Coe family who has read his training logs, and his typical winter weeks were around 70 miles.