Assuming I'm looking to maximize my potential as a Masters runner, how much difference does 80 vs 100 vs 120 mpw make?

I did about 8 weeks of 100 mpw on a Lydiard schedule in my early 40s to get from a 2:5X marathon to 2:4X. I did have to dial back my mileage one I started doing more speed work, but kept up about 70-90 mpw through my marathon training cycle. I did have problems with stress fractures, but I think that was more due to ramping up intensity as I got faster.

The top masters guys I knew who were running closer to 2:30 were not running 100 mpw. Most averaged about 70 mpw during marathon training cycles.

I think 100 mpw can work if you use it to build a big aerobic base and to make those 20+ milers seem shorter. But I do not think that it is sustainable once you start doing more speed work. Your legs will be too dead the days after hard workouts to try to keep the mileage up. I found that after really big marathon workouts (10 mi tempo, 3x4k marathon pace, etc.), I would be waddling along doing 10 min miles on easy runs. There is no point in spending 90 min to 2 hrs waddling along at 10 min a mile.

The other way for an older runner to consider, is cap volume by time rather than mileage.

e.g. 10 hours per week, and accept what ever mileage that equates to.

How come? wrote:

"High mileage" has to be re-defined as you age.

Age 40 plus, say 80 mpw?

Age 50 plus, say 65 mpw?

Age 60 plus, say 50 mpw?

Anyone have different ideas, by experience?

Probably more like 10% drop instead of your 20%. To some extent training time stays largely constant (i.e. you still go for a hour run every day) but the mileage drops (instead of 10 miles you are doing 8). And most people also need to drop from 3 hard efforts (i.e. 2 workouts and really tough long run) to more like 2 (either shorten the long run or easy up on the workout) as they start pushing 50.

my two pennies wrote:

If you want to be successful for more than just a few years, no more than 70-80 mpw and regularly taking days off is extremely important.

Whitlock broke world records in four different age groups while running 3 hrs a day.

Can you point to a low mileage masters runner who was more successful for a longer span?

How come? wrote:

"High mileage" has to be re-defined as you age.

Age 40 plus, say 80 mpw?

Age 50 plus, say 65 mpw?

Age 60 plus, say 50 mpw?

Anyone have different ideas, by experience?

Whitlock ran 120-140 mpw in his 70s.

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

Nobody can answer that. The simple answer is run 10% more than you are doing right now for a couple months and see how things go. Then rinse and repeat. You will hear about the success stories (ran 20mins faster upping my mileage) and failures (got injured after 3 months and was never the same). You need to figure out what works for you.

+1

true words. i really wonder if it makes sense to refer to whitlock or lagat. they are the very rare exceptional athletes. what use is it for a fred baker, ohio, if he knows that whitlock trained 3 hours a day (fred baker can't)? or how incredibly fast the workouts from lagat are (fred baker from ohio will never get in something similiar)? op, keep up the principles of good training at yout current level. good luck.

Oldie and not goodie wrote:

I ran 15 flat for 5k at 40 years old on 30 MPW. High mileage is overrated. You increase your risk for injury and you waste a few hours of your life every week. I have found that two quality workouts per week is what matters.

A very good comment! What matters is quality in every run you do. Then with quality I mean it`s important to run the very best individual easy pace also.. ( What I call the aerobic power pace).

To become the very best of you isn`t a matter of how MANY miles you run in your training week, it`s more a matter of HOW (! ) you run your miles and stay injury free.

- The Wizard -

How come? wrote:

Frank Shorter here wrote:

Always keep in mind that the really good guys who did 120 mpw are the ones who survived that mileage. The people who got injured and dropped out we are never talking about because for the most part they are unknown.

As a runner you always have to find the balance between more training and recovery and injuries. For young runners in the 20ies I would say go for it and see what happens.

This changes when you are over 30 or even over 40. I think you have to get more careful.

The ROE of high mileage goes down the older you get, I think.

"High mileage" has to be re-defined as you age.

Age 40 plus, say 80 mpw?

Age 50 plus, say 65 mpw?

Age 60 plus, say 50 mpw?

Anyone have different ideas, by experience?

Mariko Yugeta, age 62, up to 800 km per month for a marathon WR of 2:52.

Oldie and not goodie wrote:

I ran 15 flat for 5k at 40 years old on 30 MPW. High mileage is overrated. You increase your risk for injury and you waste a few hours of your life every week. I have found that two quality workouts per week is what matters.

You had talent that 30 MPW did not unlock. 30 miles per week is simply not enough running to get the best out of yourself, no matter how you run those 30 miles.

Pay attention to the haters. If you want sub 2:15, pure hate and 150 MPW is the way to go.

800m is mainly anaerobic.

So, i believe that you will not have big benefits from the increasing of the volume.

You will add more anaerobic training in your training.

nightmare wrote:

800m is mainly anaerobic.

So, i believe that you will not have big benefits from the increasing of the volume.

You will add more anaerobic training in your training.

The OP is talking about getting down to 2:30 for the marathon not 2' 30" for the 800m.

As someone in a similar age range running similar mileage this is my piece: Before upping mileage I think it's important to have a rock solid foundation not solely based on X number of miles run. Run 80/week in singles and do 3-4 days/week of dynamics/core/leg strength before using that "extra" time for running more miles. Perhaps 2 days worth of plyo/form/strides and 2 days worth of weighted lunges/squats/calves/etc. Have a huge toolbox of exercises and do different things each week. Vlad Ixel on youtube has some excellent short videos to give you ideas and keep you healthy. In 3-4 months you'll start to really notice the improvement in form and cadence.

From there, once you've adapted, see if you can manage 90 miles/week without cutting out any of the supplemental work. There are so many ways to get faster without just running more miles, but it will take time and commitment to stay healthy and nail your workouts.

Hazel wrote:

No problem, great responses so far!

I get there are successful elites that ran low mileage, but there's also guys like Meb, Rodgers, many many others that trained consistently at high mileage. I guess it's more a matter of personal reaction.

How can you tell whether you're responding well though? I've been in a perpetual base build since Jan of last year and looks to last at least until this fall. So with no time trials or races, how would one measure whether they've actually gotten fitter?

I've thought about doing 100 mpw back to back and see if the second week takes fewer hours, but are there better ways to control as the second week would naturally have more training fatigue built in too.

Hazel, your 5k time will tell you if you are improving.

I believe in varible mileage from medium to high. For me that was 60 - 120

Deena Castor did something similar when training with Joe Vigil:

Sorry for the typos.

Deena Kastor, variable mileage.

The Wizard JS wrote:

Oldie and not goodie wrote:

I ran 15 flat for 5k at 40 years old on 30 MPW. High mileage is overrated. You increase your risk for injury and you waste a few hours of your life every week. I have found that two quality workouts per week is what matters.

A very good comment! What matters is quality in every run you do. Then with quality I mean it`s important to run the very best individual easy pace also.. ( What I call the aerobic power pace).

To become the very best of you isn`t a matter of how MANY miles you run in your training week, it`s more a matter of HOW (! ) you run your miles and stay injury free.

- The Wizard -

Don't pay attention to this guy, OP. His marathon runners have horrible results.

I'm a current masters runner. This mileage question is always a personal preference and depends on how you're running your miles and what your body can handle.

For me, I have never been good at doubling. Even when I was younger. Probably because I was running the miles wrong and running too hard on easy days keeping up with the group. Now in my "old years" I have found that my greatest strength is slowing down. The other thing you REALLY need to do is injury prevention. I keep learning of little things I need to do to make sure that I stay healthy. 2020 wasn't my best year, but I picked up triathlons a few summers ago so I could learn to cross train. Doing triathlons in the summer allows me to slowly build my mileage coming off the break following the Spring season while also feeling like I'm gaining fitness quickly.

For me, I found my best results when running around 70-80 miles a week on singles. Now I'm adding in biking and swimming while running those miles and I have learned to adapt to where the cross training doesn't really ruin the running side of things. I will cut out the cross training when the important part of the racing season comes. This way I'm nice and fresh and ready to roll.

Good chance of injury, strong chance of injury and guaranteed chance of injury.

Hazel wrote:

Current PR is 2:50, started running a few years ago in my early 30s and looking to get down to at least 2:30. I'm a believer of the Lydiard school and can appreciate the benefits of high mileage.

To a certain degree though do the marginal costs/risks outweigh the benefits? Looking to understand whether there's a "tipping point" in terms of weekly volume during one's base building.

Also does it matter whether the volume is in singles vs doubles as long the general structural of one long run and at least one tempo are maintained?

Thanks in advance

Cross Train.

Due to your relative inexperience with regard to years of running, you're in a gray area as to what you can handle mileage-wise. Too much and you'll over-train and feel terrible and due to your age, it will take you longer to recover. You're better off logging less mileage with more quality while incorporating either run-swim, Alter-G, and or cycling. It will take a couple of years to figure what your body can handle, and even then you'll need to be careful due to getting older.

Patience, Patience, and more Patience.

"Go Run One"