How do runners get so fast with so little volume?

Peach Pit wrote:

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?

Some runners use some alternative training for aerobics to reduce impact. As other have point, it is not as efficient as running, therefore the use is limited. I am pretty sure that since triathlon is a professional sport at least some runners have experimented with larger amounts of alternative aerobic conditioning.

Isn't it a big function of muscle type? Slow-twitch guys/gals need big milage, whereas faster twitch don't (and take longer to recover).

JBaller33 wrote:

because wrote:

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.

Dude, shut up. You have idea what you're talking about.

you're an idiot wrote:

because wrote:

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.

You too. Shut up. You're clueless.

I raced against Flanagan in high school in his very first season. He is one of those guys you find playing soccer or whatever, never trained, who show up and win nationals the same year. An extremely talented individual. I was surprised he wasn't the ncaa champion sooner. Flanagan is not a good example. Put me or anyone else on 70 mpw and you're getting nowhere near those times. Double my mileage and maybe we have a little bit more of a chance, but as others have said your body will completely break down as the miles are added on.

I think fatigues plays a factor as well. Running 80-100mpw makes you tired. Most pro runners want to recover from the work that they are doing so they can stay healthy, absorb the training and hit their next session well. Adding in 16 hours of biking or swimming would just make somebody more tired. I feel like there is much more of an emphasis on recovery these days.

I think that the thing to remember when comparing running volume to the volume of other endurance sports is that running is much harder on the body. An hour of running and an hour of swimming are not the same. Yes, it might be true that the aerobic gains are similar but running will put a lot more stress on muscles, joints, and bones. In my experience, I can cross train about 1.5 times as long as I can run per day without seeing fatigue

longtime ultrarunner here wrote:

Talent matters and of course smart training helps developing that talent as well.

Talent: genetic lottery winners

I was never a great runner, but I could have been better if I knew how to train back in the day. I always thought I just worked harder than my teammates, but I also had talent for distance running. Some just don't. I did not win that lottery, but I had enough talent and enough work ethic that I got pretty good. If I had a better coach, I wonder how it would have been.

4:17 hobby jogger wrote:

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

Talent is having a natural genetic predisposition to doing something better than someone else, talent isn't magic. Could be physiologic or mental but it's genetic, you are born with 'it'. So yes there is such a thing as talent. Hard work just makes that talented person even better. It kinda helps if your talented at whatever your doing.

There is a genetic ("talent") component. VO2 max is about 50% genetic. Anyone can improve theirs. But if you were born with one much higher than someone else, yours is going to get higher, quicker and on less training.

Talent + hard work = results

There are loads of people with wasted talent, that don't work hard. There's a few that do hard work, without the talent, and do pretty good. But to be the best, you need both.

because wrote:

you're an idiot wrote:

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.

You too. Shut up. You're clueless.

Oh yeah. Only YOU know how it really is. Tell me again how a 5 hour bike ride is equivalent somehow to a 1 hour run?

Wanted to re-iterate that running 1hr+ a day is solid training that can produce solid results. Sure, not optimal, but not extremely low volume either. There is a marginal benefit to training.

From my experience 2:1 cycling time to running time is fairly accurate. This checks out when you look at elite training - most professional Tour cyclists will max out around 30 hrs/ week, and 15 hrs/week at 7 mins / mile is ~125 miles which is roughly in line with what a pro marathoner would do.

At the same time it's hard to compare long rides (>4 hrs / 75-80 miles ) vs long runs, eventually the impact of running gets too high. A 7hour ride could be done every week and still recover but a 3.5 hour run would injure almost everyone. The conversion also only really works for easy mileage, e.g the equivalent of a threshold run like 4x10 min at 1 hour race pace might be 5x10 mins on the bike but you wouldn't do 8x10 mins.

Agreed.

Better undertrained than overtrained

Talent is a myth....there is a genetic component to most sports which will cap the upper range of possibilities but most runners will improve most of the time through regular practice and focussed training. The body does not count miles - it responds to effort and intensity, judiciously applied.

By running fast - volume and fast as not synonymous

just pointing out the obvious here wrote:

because wrote:

You too. Shut up. You're clueless.

Oh yeah. Only YOU know how it really is. Tell me again how a 5 hour bike ride is equivalent somehow to a 1 hour run?

I do much longer rides. Been doing it for decades.

I recover very quickly. So do millions of others.

Try riding for more than an hour sometime.

Guy at my HS was a jacked football player who got a D1 scholarship. He literally did not attend a single track practice because he was academically ineligible until conference championships. He placed 3rd at state (California) in the long jump. They say “hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard”. But you can’t beat freak-level talent, period.

There's talent, and there's also the conversation of quality vs volume.

But if you want to develop true speed, high volume is the way to go. There's plenty of guys running 60-63 minute half marathons off of 70-90mpw, but I seriously doubt you're ever going to find a 58:xx guy running less than 110 miles a week.

I'm currently building back up towards 90mpw, and come Summer I intend to increase to 100mpw and try to get up to 115 by late Fall. High quality miles build a good base, but ultimately high mileage is what leads to big improvements and break throughs

I don't believe in talent, but in the adaptation to circumstances.

I too have seen runners who have huge progress from the beginning.

One might think that they have the talent, but in fact they have a skill developed from early childhood, to tune their effort.

A beginner has no clue on controlling the pace and they just vary the pace like on a fartlek session.

A more experienced runner will have a flat pace continuously.

Running at a constant pace is more efficient and is good in a race. However, training at a constant pace will not challenge a runner's body.

I'm not saying that doing fartlek all the time is a solution, but the amount of time ran at a constant pace shouldn't be dominant.