Simply put, is volume the easiest "catch all" answer for improving running?

Sorry I missed this and I get what you mean now. I don't know all that much about oxygen uptake kinetics but it's true you are much more hyperglycolytic during the beginning of a near maximal effort before VO2 has time to rise into the extreme domain but the other way to think about it is that your aerobic system so to speak is never off or else you would literally be dead and we're back to the previous point about how they cannot be fully independent.

I was faster at 100 miles per week than I was at 50 miles per week, but not for long. Once I increased to 110 and beyond I was much slower than I was in high school topping-out at 50 miles per week.

To the point of the thread, increasing mileage certainly does improve performance. However, you have to know your limits and be honest with yourself about that. I just couldn't accept that the higher mileage was making me slower, even though it was. I probably should have gone back down to like 85 mpw after my performances got worse and were more inconsistent when I was running above 90 miles per week.

Fair enough, however if the amateur runner is doing this, how do they optimally train their ST muscles fibres, and improve their ability to burn fat?

Ah, that has become a bit of a hot button issue thanks to a certain trend that has recently become popular. Maximum fax oxidation is being conflated to a point around lactate turn point 1 despite that it is highly variable between individuals and to my knowledge cannot be found outside of a lab, but more importantly, the consensus is that you don't have to train near fat max to get better at utilizing fat.

In a way, human physiology is vastly complex, there are certainly adaptations more prevalent at one intensity vs. another, but training itself can be made very simple. Either it improves VO2 max, lactate threshold, running economy, and possibly a fourth element that is being called durability, or it doesn't. We know that just about any reasonable training distribution will still provide these key adaptations if the workload is there and it is suited to the athlete. Sure maybe one style of training may lead faster improvements but barring serious injury all elites will eventually reach a place way beyond the point of diminishing returns and adding more intensity or more volume will not help them.

Now we can face the elephant in the room which is genetics, forget drugs and super shoes for a second. The best runners could have probably made their way to the top in any number of ways, the worst runners will always get fruitless results. Elites can naturally can train longer without injury at the same intensity so simple linear regression modeling will tend to show that increased volume = increased performance, losing all the nuance that has already been discussed in this thread.

As for what amateurs should do, well let's say after a couple of years trying out different distributions they get to the point where they can reasonably infer they will probably never be world class despite their efforts, that is something many of us have to face in various avenues and there is no shame in it. At that point, why be autistic about training at all? Do whatever you enjoy that you think gives good results, let consistency and time take you to the point of diminishing returns or beyond.

Great post. Unfortunately there are still many on this forum that will stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to accept the wise words that you said ( especially about genetics, tolerance to training and ultimate potential), in their belief that the right training approach or ultimate mix of volume and intensity is right around the corner, and as soon as they find it…the sky’s the limit…

Am I missing something? There are a few on here that report that their results improved as they increased their training volumes over the years…

But what about the simple variable of time? That doesn’t appear to factor into the thinking of many.

What if, instead of starting out at 30 mpw and over five years increasing it to 70 mpw… the same person just remained at 30? (using this as an arbitrary number… insert your own start and end point). Progress may well have occurred, even to the same extent just due to the time spent training.

Of course consistency is one of the most important factors. The issue is more - will you be a better runner maintaining 30 mpw over a number of years, or a higher number over a number of years. Those who run decent volumes consistently tend to have more resilience to injury. The thing to avoid is wild swings in volume.

There are 2 problems with you ))

1) You don't understand a very important part in my DANCAN coaching system. It works BOTH ways, low or high volume doesn't matter.I have of course never told that high mileage doesn't work because we all know the vast majority of top runners last decenniums succeded that way.But it's very good to see evidence, both in my coaching and in the running history, that great results have been done by runners at all levels on relatively low volume too.

2) You are stuck in old believes and don't have visions like me backed up by very long experience of running grounded in scientific and practical knowings.

🧙‍♂️The Magician , Swedish power online running coach. 🇸🇪 Welcome to magically fast improve your running! 🏃‍♀️🏃🖐🏆

Plenty of people do that. They do the same training and run the same time at the turkey trot every year.

if there was some way to avoid volume, some elite would do it. There are elites at the lower end of volume (60-70mpw) as 1500m/3000m runners but nobody is down at 35mpw.

The nuance is always that you can’t do more volume than you can handle. It is easy to say your HS XC will dominate if you all do 80mpw for 3 years. It is a lot harder to do that and remain healthy. And there are limits. 90 being good doesn’t mean 120 is better. But very few people are at that point.

Funny how in such a long and detailed reply you "forgot" to answer my question about Sammy Nyokaye.

Please answer it.

If anyone is stuck in old beliefs it is you, using science from the 1930s.

No it is not that simple. You improve very fast at first and then hit a plateau or worse get injured.

You should aim to be as fast as possible on as little mileage as possible. THEN increase mileage over the years (yes years, this is a long term commitment).

If you can run a 16 or 17 minute 5K on 30 miles a week then you have the talent to go further.

Well yes, volume is the simple answer and it's the general answer for most things. Do something more often, you will likely get better at it (except golf.)

Golf too, but only if you have the correct mechanics and swing. If you don't, then all the practice you put in is only reinforcing bad habits that will make your scores balloon.

This is a great thread.

I think the answer for distance runners is "Yes, unless you've maximized how much you can run".

The science is fairly clear that easy running volume has greatest correlation to long term success among all measures of training. It is also true for the greatest % of runners and is a whole lot easier to implement than something like more specialized interval workouts or changing up your periodization of training.

I think more volume also covers or corrects for inadequate workouts (as long as they aren't run to hard). My oldest child runs long distance in high school and I obviously care if he is successful or not at it. It's easy to not be 100% on board with the coaching the team provides, but at the end of the day I care very little what workouts they are running, as long as he isn't running them too hard and he is getting in enough volume and increasing his volume over the years. 4x250 with long rest twice in a week in January rather than getting in a tempo or longer intervals? Who cares if he is getting in a lot of miles easy that week and knows not to kill himself on the quick stuff. It's worked well so far! (None of these thoughts apply to 800m runners).

I actually think frequency is a bigger driver than volume! With that said, if you run more often, you will likely end up with more volume. I believe Costil had some research showing that gains aerobic capacity from volume topped out around 65-75 miles per week. Additionally, Jan Olbrecht's book has a nice chart showing how mitochondrial biogenesis plateaus after one hour of aerobic exercise. So run more frequently for 20-60 minutes and you get more stimulation of mitochondria and growth hormone.

So I would say build to running 6-7 days per week for an hour. Then add some doubles if you can physically handle it!

Generally curious how slow you are. You sound slow.

So where's the neuroscience in your hypothetical scenario?