Is mileage overrated? Brandon Johnson ran 1:43 on 50-60 mpw, 1:46 on 80 to 90?

I have not read every post here, but have read some. I agree that 80-90mpw for an 800 guy/gal sounds excessive (and perhaps somewhat counter-productive?). However, for me, as a 40+ guy trying to get better in the 5k-13.1 range, higher mileage has been absolutely indispensable. The difference from one year to the next has been night/day. I went from a so-so guy in the 5k and 10k, to a pretty decent runner up to 13.1. I was doing 30-35mpw two years ago, and just going to 40-50 made a huge improvement. I am now training for a marathon. I would have topped out at 70mpw were it not for a groin strain on a very cold day's run (5-degree F wind chill with very gusty NW winds). The strain is getting better, and hopefully I will be on the roads next week. In any case, I have become a firm believer in mileage.

Just limit your base "faze"....

kod3200 is wrong, Now a Coach is right.

http://www.zone5endurance.com/?p=1770

Now Brandon Johnson's anaerobic % for the 800 is higher than an 800-1500 guy's 800, even if their times for the 800 are equal. That's because Johnson has more to give from the anaerobic side than the 800-1500 guy. But no way Johnson's 800 is 90% anaerobic the way kod3200 asserted.

rojo wrote:

To me, high mileage is essential for EVERYONE. But high mileage is the highest amount you can handle.

There's where you're wrong. Just in my 5 years of collegiate running I have run accross tons of 800m runners whose optimal training was (far) less than 40 miles a week. Even me, a more 800 and up type of runner ran the 800 MUCH better when I stopped mile training and focused on the 800. Short, fast, intense workouts and 4-6 miles easy in between. No long run. It's a pretty simple method for 800 runners.

Victorious88 wrote:

rojo wrote:

To me, high mileage is essential for EVERYONE. But high mileage is the highest amount you can handle.

There's where you're wrong. Just in my 5 years of collegiate running I have run accross tons of 800m runners whose optimal training was (far) less than 40 miles a week. Even me, a more 800 and up type of runner ran the 800 MUCH better when I stopped mile training and focused on the 800. Short, fast, intense workouts and 4-6 miles easy in between. No long run. It's a pretty simple method for 800 runners.

You didn't refute his point. You may have been doing more than you could handle prior to changing it up.

ScottEvil wrote:

TrackCoach wrote:

His senior year, a new coach took over who put him on a 5 day training week and he ended PRing almost every time he raced. Btw, I am not against high mileage, but it does not work for everyone.

Sounds to me like he benefitted from both the mileage and the long term taper, like Ritz in 2009. Base buildup can take years.

With the high mileage, he was able to race all the way up to the 5k, but a 4:05 mile, 14:14 5k and 5th man on a cross country team doesn't compare to running a 1:47 800m and 1:45 the following year and coming within one place of making a WC team. Not saying the high mileage wasn't beneficial, but it mostly benefited his coach who was chasing XC championships and mile/5k/10k success. The 1:47 he ran as a senior is what I figured he would run a freshman. (He ran 1:51 off of 2 years of training in a race that went out in 56; we both knew he could run faster.) Some coaches are so locked into high mileage and succeeding in their attachment events, that when they see a 1:51/4:14 HS kid, they want to move him up in distance and overlook the fact that this kid's 22.0 200m and 47.8 400m is the real secret to his success.

Victorious88 wrote:

rojo wrote:

To me, high mileage is essential for EVERYONE. But high mileage is the highest amount you can handle.

There's where you're wrong. Just in my 5 years of collegiate running I have run accross tons of 800m runners whose optimal training was (far) less than 40 miles a week. Even me, a more 800 and up type of runner ran the 800 MUCH better when I stopped mile training and focused on the 800. Short, fast, intense workouts and 4-6 miles easy in between. No long run. It's a pretty simple method for 800 runners.

Your 100% right that "high mileage is essential for EVERYONE" is an absurdly wrong view. Everyone is different. Some 800 guys can run great off of high mileage, others certainly not, and would do much better on a speed oriented/higher quality/lower volume program.

Hell, these guys ran great 5ks(!) off much lower mileage(45-65 range) than BJ's 80-90 mpw 800 training:

a) alan webb

b) Bernard Lagat

c) Jim Spivey

d) Doug Padilla

e) Henry Marsh (well, his even was steeple, but surely he was capable of a very fast 5k)

High mileage was not "essential" for them.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

e) Henry Marsh (well, his even was steeple, but surely he was capable of a very fast 5k)

.

Marsh was NOT capable of a great 5000m.

corrected that for you wrote:

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

e) Henry Marsh (well, his even was steeple, but surely he was capable of a very fast 5k)

.

Marsh was NOT capable of a great 5000m.

PB 13:45.2 in 1984

ventolin^3 wrote:

i've heard caballo won '76 gold in a virtually solo 1'43.5 after rounds off

15 miles/ week !!!

probably a lot more than Jarmila though

Just like a lot of other things, there is diminishing return to running mileage. The marginal utility of additional mile is largest at the lower end, and it will eventually become negative at some point. It is not a surprise that a low mileage runner benefits from modest increase in mileage.

Pressgang wrote:

I am an 800/1500 guy who has trained up to 120 miles/week (60-80 normally), and I find the jump in mileage for BJ, a converted hurdler, as absolutely bone-headed. Who was the coach?

How much would you increase your mileage to get a BJ?

corrected that for you wrote:

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

e) Henry Marsh (well, his even was steeple, but surely he was capable of a very fast 5k)

.

Marsh was NOT capable of a great 5000m.

statsmann wrote:

PB 13:45.2 in 1984

Look, we can debate it, but I am positive that a guy who ran 8:09 steeple and who excelled at that distance for years was capable of at least 13:15-20 if he had focused on the 5k over those years. It's not like he was a 3:50 miler. Even though he often used speed oriented training (instead of high volume), he had a lot of strength.

Thanks for the follow-up. Very interesting story. It sounds like the coach mistrained the guy, esp. with that 200/400 combo. What I was suggesting is that three years of base training and sub-optimal 800s helped him handle the high-intensity workouts his senior year...but knowing all the times now, I think that doesn't look so likely. It sounds like he got the wrong training. I'm also surprised because if a kid really had potential to be a 1:45 guy I would think a coach would jump on that, especially if not at a traditional powerhouse school. I imagine that Ryan Martin was a real recruiting boon for UCSB.

Linsanity wrote:

Who the hell would have an 800m guy running 80 - 90 miles a week??

Ummm..... I don't know.... Maybe the legendary coach Arthur Lydiard who coached the also legendary Peter Snell (2 time 800m Gold Medalist and 800m WR of his day 1:44.3 ... ON A GRASS TRACK).

It seems possible that a highly intelligent training program can utilize high mileage in a positive way. The results from Lydiards High Mileage athletes, including 800m runners, is a solid counterpoint to the Brandon Johnson example.

High Mileage is the not the ONLY factor you should or can point your finger at when an athlete has a bad race or bad season.

He got hurt because he basically double his mileage! End of story in my book. I assume since he used to be a sprinter 40-50mpw was probably a huge increase in work load alone. Hey i believe in high mileage but it needs to be built up to over years. This is lack of common sense by the coach and/or athlete.

rojo -

here's the last two weeks of training for Cassimir Loxom before breaking the american record in the 600 meters

https://twitter.com/dtmack/status/560817256888676352

N=1

and it's not the milage but how you do it. Wejo preaches this in all of his articles where he mentioned how he ran so slow so that he could do crazy high volume. maybe Brandon (not being experienced with higher milage, getting bored on runs, whatever) was pushing the pace on his training runs and digging himself into a whole. maybe if he did 80-90mpw at ~1:00 slower on his training runs he could've handled it find. too much volume doesn't kill a good training plan, too much intensity does.

AMAZING... even the co founder of this site fails to grasp the reality of DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS. how hard is this? when will people GET IT!? some people an run under a given time with 50 miles a week while others will need over 100 mpw for the same feat. i mean COME ON PEOPLE why havent you caught on? you could just as easily dig something up and say "mileage underrated?" some need more mileage some need less. DAM...