Probably been asked before but...
Take a runner on 30mpw with times of say:
2:00 800m, 4:20 mile, 16:00 5k
Double the mileage to 60mpw, what is their likely new best times?
Probably been asked before but...
Take a runner on 30mpw with times of say:
2:00 800m, 4:20 mile, 16:00 5k
Double the mileage to 60mpw, what is their likely new best times?
Bump
1:59 800m, 4:13 mile, 14:25 5k
Yes, hé/she will be faster. Keep in mind that improving speed is in a matter if weeks, endurance is a whole entire other story.
In order to inprove that you need months
I am following this subject a long time (3+ decades) and I came to the conclusion that mileage is totally overrated. If you do the right training whatever the mileage is at the end of the week it's the weekly mileage.
Top Marathon runners run a lot of miles because they are fast not because they run a lot of miles. If you can cover 20+ miles easily in 1:45 you will have a lot of miles at the end of the week.
And than there is the common perception by a lot of hobby runners, if they bump up the mileage they will get better. That might work to a small degree but just bumping up to 120 mile per week will not make you a world class marathoner. You might survive the 120 mpw for a couple of weeks but you won't get faster but you might end up with an injury.
Bingo.
There is SOME performance advantage in mileage, but it's very overrated (show us studies on it, if it has such a strong effect). There are also other factors as well, eg age, what your history of running is, how near some maximal for your genetics you are etc. Also be careful it doesn't tip into injury world, where those inactive periods are frequent setbacks.
STRONK wrote:
1:59 800m, 4:13 mile, 14:25 5k
I think most runners would see ~4 seconds improvement in the 800 down to 1:56 at least.
Maybe 10s in the mile depending on talent down to 4:10
16:00 to 14:25 is a pretty hefty improvement. I'd be conservative and say 15:00
Okay but would you agree that an increase in training leads to improvement?
An increase in aerobic training leads to aerobic development which helps the 800+
+1
i couldn´ t agree more. you reach your individual optimum because you have done what is necessary without getting injured, not because of miles. this here is a good one:
“I ran 3:52.02 in the mile running an average of just over 40 miles a week, almost all of it high quality. I believed that if I ran 80 miles a week I would run 3:42. Wrong, I upped my mileage, lowered the quality, and never ran faster.” – Craig Masback, CEO of USA Track & Field, Track & Field Coaches Review, December 1999, page II” [sic!](3)
ex-runner wrote:
Well..... wrote:
Bingo.
There is SOME performance advantage in mileage, but it's very overrated (show us studies on it, if it has such a strong effect). There are also other factors as well, eg age, what your history of running is, how near some maximal for your genetics you are etc. Also be careful it doesn't tip into injury world, where those inactive periods are frequent setbacks.
Okay but would you agree that an increase in training leads to improvement?
An increase in aerobic training leads to aerobic development which helps the 800+
If we were shortcutting the discussion to be brief I would say yes, naturally.
However, if discussion more specifically in this context of mileage, then I'd still say yes with some caveats. I would then say it depends on a number of factors. I.e if you are doing 100 miles a week, then why not 200 ? Naturally, there's a tradeoff between distance, risk, allocating mileage at the expense of other forms of training.
That tradeoff depends on where one currently is, and a number of other factors, like I mentioned. How close are you to maxing out without injury. How old are you. What distance are you running. Note how age and/or what you are training for rarely even get a mention! This is part of the problem, people just throw out the old mileage is king, when not even asking about any factors.
As I said, mileage is important, but there always needs to be more info to know how much.
Mileage has a direct correlation with race speed up to ~ 60 miles per week in recreational runners.
See figure 1
All those people who says that simple increasing mileage won't make you a better runner.
If violinists increases the amount of time they practice, they get better. Period. The same with ballerinas, tenis players, soccer players, students etc.
Why would the runner be the only one that can't improve just by training more?
Of course you will get faster by increasing mileage (of course, in a smart and safe way) but
Unfortunately there's no way to know by how much. You have to find by yourself.
I'll never get tired os citing this study, to me it's one the most important pieces of research ever done in distance running.
It simply shows that out of all types of training, easy running is the one that has the most impact on running performance.
Brazilian Guy wrote:
Why would the runner be the only one that can't improve just by training more?
Of course you will get faster by increasing mileage (of course, in a smart and safe way) but
Unfortunately there's no way to know by how much. You have to find by yourself.
More training exhausts your body more and might lead to injury.
And no you are not get faster by increasing your mileage. You get faster by running faster.
You might gain endurance with more miles but just more is not always more.
Mileage expert wrote:
Brazilian Guy wrote:
Why would the runner be the only one that can't improve just by training more?
Of course you will get faster by increasing mileage (of course, in a smart and safe way) but
Unfortunately there's no way to know by how much. You have to find by yourself.
More training exhausts your body more and might lead to injury.
And no you are not get faster by increasing your mileage. You get faster by running faster.
You might gain endurance with more miles but just more is not always more.
That's why I said about increasing mileage in a safe and smart way.
And for mileage not making you faster, I have to disagree. Of course I'm not talking about raw speed.
What I meant to say is that unless one is fully developed aerobically, increasing mileage will make a runner run fast at any given effort. Simply because will you become a more efficient runner.
And by being a more efficient runner, your marathon pace will get faster, your half marathon, 10k, 5k etc will get faster.
Because you will be running more efficiently at any given effort.
not a scientist wrote:
Probably been asked before but...
Take a runner on 30mpw with times of say:
2:00 800m, 4:20 mile, 16:00 5k
Double the mileage to 60mpw, what is their likely new best times?
It doesn`t function like that. That runner can improve on 30 mpw by just run faster on all paces needed for improvement. Stop thinking in terms of double mileage= improvement!
Brazilian Guy wrote:
Mileage expert wrote:
More training exhausts your body more and might lead to injury.
And no you are not get faster by increasing your mileage. You get faster by running faster.
You might gain endurance with more miles but just more is not always more.
That's why I said about increasing mileage in a safe and smart way.
And for mileage not making you faster, I have to disagree. Of course I'm not talking about raw speed.
What I meant to say is that unless one is fully developed aerobically, increasing mileage will make a runner run fast at any given effort. Simply because will you become a more efficient runner.
And by being a more efficient runner, your marathon pace will get faster, your half marathon, 10k, 5k etc will get faster.
Because you will be running more efficiently at any given effort.
What you and so many runners and coaches don`t have the competence to know about is that it`s more than possible to be fully developed aerobically on just single daily sessions .
Jan Stensson , Coach JS wrote:
Brazilian Guy wrote:
That's why I said about increasing mileage in a safe and smart way.
And for mileage not making you faster, I have to disagree. Of course I'm not talking about raw speed.
What I meant to say is that unless one is fully developed aerobically, increasing mileage will make a runner run fast at any given effort. Simply because will you become a more efficient runner.
And by being a more efficient runner, your marathon pace will get faster, your half marathon, 10k, 5k etc will get faster.
Because you will be running more efficiently at any given effort.
What you and so many runners and coaches don`t have the competence to know about is that it`s more than possible to be fully developed aerobically on just single daily sessions .
Then why pretty much all elite runners do 10-14 training sessions per week? I think you have to do doubles in order to achieve that. And we only know one (Yuki kawauchi) elite runner that reached the top doing only singles. And even though he used to do +10km (+6 miles cool downs) after his workouts. Something that probably hurts like hell.
You don't have to do double to be an excellent distance runner, just have to run a lot of miles (with a lot of quality also) and the best way of doing this is by doing doubles. (And we're not even entering the subject of the benefits that come from 2 training stimulus per day)
Is mileage itself even that relevant of a measure to be talking about? It seems duration and intensity of running would be more important, since that's what the body understands. For example, a 10 mile run can vary greatly in terms of duration based on the effort. Wouldn't running at a certain time at a certain effort be more precise in terms of training than just running at a prescribed mileage?
The stimulus from 2 training sessions daily doesn`t outclass one session of 70-90 min at individual exact best aerobic power pace .That singles are enough for individual excellence aerob power isn't just proved by Yuki in history.