Running high mileage is significantly easier than people think

I love this thread. Went through similar experience as a lot of the og posters. Ran 40/50 mpw in high school, wondered why I wasn’t making it to state and why my cross times were awful compared to my mile/800. Actually called up the runners from my high school who won state and the 70s and just asked them what they did. The answer was what you’d expect. Over 100mpw, 5 miles in the am and 10 miles at practice almost every day. So I bumped up to 75/80 and dropped huge time, sadly I didn’t have much guidance and got hurt because my “coaches” were still having me do hard workout far too often. The biggest thing I struggle with is trying to explain to a normal high school kid why running so many miles is the smartest way to train, they all think they just need to run harder and its tough to break that cycle,

High Mileage Runner wrote:

So the point of this thread is to say this:

If you're one of those people who says "If I go over 30MPW I get injured every time!" You're wrong! Just run a week of nothing but easy doubles and once you've done that before you know it you'll be running that same mileage with 2 hard sessions and some gym work thrown in.

Good for you and perhaps true for most people, but you are overgeneralizing as not everyone’s physiology is built to tolerate mileage.

If you’ve been on this forum a while, you probably know spambot david45. If not for his spamminess, I’d totally relate to his experience coz I’d constantly getting injured at very low mileage like 15-20 mpw.

I finally realized that I had bilateral calcaneal stress fractures, but the pain would quickly subside to almost nothing in a week or two and I’d resume running for a few more weeks only for the cycle to repeat, which all finally became clear through MRIs. I don’t know how I could run nearly pain free with the MRI showing a stress fracture hairline but it is scary to think that pain wasn’t a reliable signal.

I did some more analysis and found through a DXA scan that I’m nearly osteoporotic in bone density, which could explain the vulnerability to stress fractures. My nutrition isn’t a problem as my nutritionist also confirmed, so I’m now doing weight training and considering medication for improving bone density. Before I started running, I had no idea I had any physiological issues and had always been in great health and (non-running) fitness compared to even younger adult peers.

Bottomline is I’ve been very dedicated at running (which is easy if you love running like most of us here do) for over a year and learned the hard way that it’s just not as easy for me to increase mileage like most everyone else.

god the real one wrote:

You Use to be why I can no longer stand Strava. Bunch of 25 MPW people with 22min 5k prs running every easy run at 7 min pace. And they all compliment each other for how fast they are every day and probably look down on actual fast runners who take easy days slowly.

I know this post is a year old, but still. The melodrama in this swollen content is hard to contain. Yes, people run way too fast for Strava kudos, but think before you click "Post Reply." 22 min 5k people running 7 min pace would be faster than their PRs.

What benefit is there to run 100mpw compared to 70?

From what I see, best endurance runners run around 60-80mpw. Those who run less or more are slower and gets injuries more frequent.

lvrhs1992 wrote:

What benefit is there to run 100mpw compared to 70?

From what I see, best endurance runners run around 60-80mpw. Those who run less or more are slower and gets injuries more frequent.

I'm not so sure that's true. Kipchoge might have something to say about that. Molly Seidel posts her training on Strava and averaged 100 mpw for the entire year, breaks and tapering included. Perhaps I'd agree with you if you are talking about 5k-10k athletes, or you are only concerning yourself with people who don't qualify for either the elite or sub-elite category. But the best distance runners log way more than 60 mpw. Klecker did low 80s average and he's a 10k guy.

Lion belt wrote:

Most people who do doubles are unemployed.

It is hard to get to 100mpw with singles.

It's easy to get doubles in if you run to work and back.

80s American runner wrote:

Also, once I finished work every day, I never had to do additional work at home in the evenings.

In other words, work life was easier back then, or at least you had an easy job. Good for you.

Let’s forget the time argument about running. I work a full time job and barely run now, although I don’t because I want to do other things outside of work.

When I was serious about running in college, this general mindset is 100% true. So many of my teammates would get injured because they had a mindset of sub 7 for every single run. I started doubling and running very chill for most runs and became the best runner on the team.

The thing about doubling and being flexible with pace is that you learn a lot more about yourself and running. There is something to be said about total time spent on your feet, and the more time you spend trying to be relaxed while running, no matter the specific pace, the more efficient and better you will be.

Doubling allows way more flexibility with training and allows you to explore yourself more. Maybe you do 2 fast miles in the AM and 14 slow in the Pm. Or 6 moderate miles in the Am and 8 mile progression in the Pm. Or maybe it’s two slow 10 mile runs for the day. Approaching training like this allows you to really focus on your mechanics and efficiencies as a runner. Further more you will understand way more about your limits and what it really means to be successfully running a particular pace. If you’re serious about long distance running, make it a goal to double 5+ days a week for 6 months or more, never pushing into fatigued that last mores than 2 days. Of course in cooperating speed and strides is important, but you will see by the end of those 6 months how much more smooth you will be on your feet. It’s not only about the quantity, but more so the flexibility with training that only quantity will provide. This is assuming you are not slogging through 100mpw but actively engaging with each run.

I am thinking about about my country best 1500-HM runners. - regular white guys. I don't follow that much what kenyans are doing.

Most super high mileage runners can't break 1.15-1.20 in half marathon. And few who can 1.05-1.10, often get injured.

lvrhs1992 wrote:

I am thinking about about my country best 1500-HM runners. - regular white guys. I don't follow that much what kenyans are doing.

Most super high mileage runners can't break 1.15-1.20 in half marathon. And few who can 1.05-1.10, often get injured.

Seidel and Klecker aren't Kenyans. Seidel has been pretty bullet-proof, despite high mileage, and has really excelled.

Side note: dismissing Kenyans immediately takes out the vast majority of the successful runners at the HM distance. Since they often run high mileage, excluding them is a convenient way to ignore the obvious premise errors in the hypothesis.

lvrhs1992 wrote:

I am thinking about about my country best 1500-HM runners. - regular white guys. I don't follow that much what kenyans are doing.

Most super high mileage runners can't break 1.15-1.20 in half marathon. And few who can 1.05-1.10, often get injured.

Rupp was running 90-110 mpw when he was competing on the track.

140+ mpw leading up to Rio.

60-80mpw might be common among 1500m runners. But those who run fast in 5000m tend to run more, unless you are Lagat, who is not a regular white guy. (Centro, who is also not a regular white guy, was running 75-90mpw under Salazar.)

For long distance running, mileage works. Period. Everybody knows it.

Mileage is also hard. And painful. And time consuming. And boring. And risky. And takes away from other aspects of life. But it works.

It just makes people feel better to say, "It doesn't work," than to say, "I choose not to do it, because it's too....."

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

lvrhs1992 wrote:

I am thinking about about my country best 1500-HM runners. - regular white guys. I don't follow that much what kenyans are doing.

Most super high mileage runners can't break 1.15-1.20 in half marathon. And few who can 1.05-1.10, often get injured.

Rupp was running 90-110 mpw when he was competing on the track.

140+ mpw leading up to Rio.

60-80mpw might be common among 1500m runners. But those who run fast in 5000m tend to run more, unless you are Lagat, who is not a regular white guy. (Centro, who is also not a regular white guy, was running 75-90mpw under Salazar.)

There's an old thread on here where Renato Canova chimes in and explains why some of his very elite long distance runners "only" run 80 miles per week. It's because, as he put it, "They already built their aerobic house foundation," or something to that effect. In other words, they've already built up from high school doing 60-70 mow, then 80-100 in college and up to 120-140 mpw after that. Then, after 10 years of very, very, very high mileage, some of them can start coming down in mileage back to a lower (in comparison) volume of 100 or even 60-80 miles per week, without a drop in performance. These are super-elites.

That's not the same as saying "Joe Hobby jogger can't possibly get any faster with more mileage if he already runs 60 miles per week." The true statement is, "Joe Hobby jogger doesn't want to run more than ____ miles per week." And that's fine. There's more...much more, to life than running ever-increasing mileage and faster road-race times. But people should be honest. Not wanting to run more, doesn't mean it's impossible that running more will make them faster.

I am just writing, that 60-80 miles is already high. Low mileage would we 30. And 120 is very high.

Few weeks ago one super high mileage runner died in his 50s. Reason for his death was heart, who had become very weak of excessie running.

I have a friend who did a high 2:16 off of 60-70 a week in his mid 20s. He was never a big mileage guy until a stretch of time 12 years later when he began doing 120 mile weeks at 8,000 feet. He had a similar complaint to yours, he felt sluggish and slow. But that year, at age 37 and in what was his 97th or 98th marathon, he ran a mid 2:15. After that race he kept complaining about how sluggish and slow he felt.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

80s American runner wrote:

Also, once I finished work every day, I never had to do additional work at home in the evenings.

In other words, work life was easier back then, or at least you had an easy job. Good for you.

There is some merit to your comment. I would not say my career was "easy," not one bit!!! But, it did not require work outside of work hours (state job--cannot say specifically). Obviously, if you have to work after a 9-5 workday (let alone the wife, kids, or a second job), it will be much harder to fit in the mileage without implementing run commutes to and from work.

When it was impossible to make a living from the sport a lot of us who wanted to keep running seriously after college made a point of getting jobs that were fairly compatible with running. I know the first thing I thought about when looking for a job was if it would allow me to get my runs in. I think a frontier that people today, not just runners, should confront is this business of work creeping into the post work time of day.

I never did "high" mileage but I did 70-75 miles per week for a couple of months before my first marathon. I did it all and the marathon without a single injury and then, ironically, injured my hamstring the week later on a short fast run. I was told that because I had a number of days off my muscles had probably contracted and then when I did the run they were suddenly stretched again. These days I do lower mileage but balance it with tempo runs, intervals and a long run.