80mpw VS 120mpw - difference in race times

Depends on the runner's genetics and the event.

"Depends" is correct. Part of "talent" is one's level of ability to absorb work without injury. The 80mpw runner will have much better times--if s/he gets to the starting line and the 120mpw person doesn't.

Small note: For some 80mpw runners a 20mi long run--on a regular basis, at least--would be too much. The "20% Rule" is obviously not hard and fast, but for some an every-week 20 miler would distort the rest of the week's training.

---

Diminishing returns revisited wrote:
Question: if you have 2 people who are equally talented and one runs 80mpw (10 miles a day, 20 mile long run, 2 hard workouts) and one runs 120mpw (20 mile long run, 2 hard workouts, mileage spread over 10-14 workouts),
what would the difference in race times - 5K, 10K, HM and Marathon - be?

---

I'd say they will run just slightly faster in the 5k. Let's say they were the exact same person in high school and built up to these 80/120 mile weeks during college. Let's say the 80 mile week person runs 14:00 their senior year, the 120 mile week person I think would more like 13:45-13:50. For 10k, maybe the 80 mile per week person is running 29:20's, I think the 120 mile per week person would run 28:40's. And in marathon, only running 80 miles per week will be a tough go, this person runs 2:20. The 120 mile week person runs 2:13.

I think around 10k is where 80 miles per week starts to be too little for ideal training volume. You can get by with 80 in the 5k if your workouts are generally harder. It becomes tough to handle extra hard workouts with the higher mileage. You need the higher intensity workouts for the shorter events.

I ran over 4000 miles in 2019. From 2013-2018 I averaged about 3700 miles a year. I ran my 2 fastest 5k's in 2020 after decreasing my mileage down to closer to 60 mpw with way more intense/specific workouts. I'm in my early 40s and have been running since 9th grade.

The problem with your scenario is whether the higher mileage runner would be able to nail the workouts with so many miles in his legs.

At least there's a few responses on here trying to get across the point that miles aren't everything ad it depends.

In one of Matt Fitzgerald's books, he lists some mileages that Brad Hudson states:

Elite
5K - 90-110
10K - 95-115
1/2M - 100-120
Mar - 110-130

Competitive
5K - 50-60
10K - 60-70
1/2M - 70-80
Mar - 80-90

Beginner
5K - 20-30
10K - 25-35
1/2M - 35-40
Mar 40-50

So running 80 or 120 depends at what stage of a career someone is.
And whether their talent is towards speed or endurance.

There is no guarantee the 120 runner will be able to handle the training without breaking down, let alone reap the benefits of such volume.

It's an individual thing. I found my marathon times were much better on 90 mpw. When I went over 110, I was just tired all of the time. The key is to be able to do quality work to maximize one's performance. Anyone can go out there and slog through high mileage.

1% improvement for every mile per day

I don't have much to add besides my improvement. I was on 70 - 90 mpw for 2 years and my 5k PR was only in the 15:50s. I decided the next summer to really up it and I averaged over 100 for the whole summer hitting 110 several times. I ended up running in the 14:40s.

---

Diminishing returns revisited wrote:
Question: if you have 2 people who are equally talented and one runs 80mpw (10 miles a day, 20 mile long run, 2 hard workouts) and one runs 120mpw (20 mile long run, 2 hard workouts, mileage spread over 10-14 workouts),
what would the difference in race times - 5K, 10K, HM and Marathon - be?

---

For the average person, less than 80 miles is good enough for fitness.

Professionals run over 100 milers per week to squeeze out the maximum performance possible. It's not linear. Going from 80 miles to 120 miles does not make a person 50% faster. I'm guessing the person would gain a few percentage points in speed, but I don't have any hard data to prove it.

Trick question: they are equally talented and they are both doing the perfect routine for their own body according to their theoretical coach so they ran the exact times down to the nanosecond in every event.
The 120 miler is pretty pissed about doing more work for the same result just because his biology is different.

Alternative answer: the difference between any 2 people is infinite because the variation of 2 individuals is also infinite.

This is a tough question. Looking at the top elites you see very few that run 120 miles per week. Of the few that do run 120 mpw, they only hit that a few weeks a year. They mostly hang-out around 90-110. Obviously it depends on the athlete but around 100 mpw seems to be a great sweet spot if you work up to it and give yourself a few weeks to adapt.

99% of people will see a drop in performance when they exceed 80MPW. There is a reason that elite 5k runners don't exceed 100MPW.

---

Diminishing returns revisited wrote:
Question: if you have 2 people who are equally talented and one runs 80mpw (10 miles a day, 20 mile long run, 2 hard workouts) and one runs 120mpw (20 mile long run, 2 hard workouts, mileage spread over 10-14 workouts),
what would the difference in race times - 5K, 10K, HM and Marathon - be?

---

---

Vigilante wrote:

---

Diminishing returns revisited wrote:
Question: if you have 2 people who are equally talented and one runs 80mpw (10 miles a day, 20 mile long run, 2 hard workouts) and one runs 120mpw (20 mile long run, 2 hard workouts, mileage spread over 10-14 workouts),
what would the difference in race times - 5K, 10K, HM and Marathon - be?

---

The old Joe Vigil approach was probably almost ideal, at least for every distance up to the 10,000. It was about 110 mpw.

Not sure what he prescribed for marathoners...

---