High mileage for middle distance running experiment (finished)

The Con wrote:

McSweyn is 90-100, not 110-120. I believe Jakob said that we was around 110 this year and that's been his highest. I know Gjert claimed that they run over 200km per week but I'm not if I believe that to be true. I tend to believe Jabkob more.

plenty of people run 110-125 mpw during the base phase. the gap between that and 150mpw is huge. Very few track guys have done mileage like that for long that I have ever heard of. It is one thing to do 2 big mileage weeks. It is another to crank out 10 weeks of 150+.

The theory behind my training is very similar to the Ingebritsens, which is also very similar to Lydiard base training, and as you said, as much LT threshold training as possible, as well as as much quality aerobic work as possible. I'm not sure the hill workout they do is overly intense - my understanding is it was more a running form/strength type exercise, similar almost to Lydiard's hill bounding.

Perhaps a few months before track season starts I could look at doing more sessions like that regardless.

During track season I would do some things on the track that got close to what I thought would be mile pace (around 60s), such as 15x300 in 46-47 with 100 walk/jog in 45-50. Interestingly Nic Bideau has said that McSweyn never runs fast that 60 per 400 in training.

I've thought about the double workout thing and did it a handful of times. The problem is mostly that I just don't run very well for the first few hours out of bed, and because I work, I would have to do my morning runs early. Steady running is fine, but workouts I struggle to get going.

I would also say that I seem to recover from and handle the bigger sessions okay, so the incentive to break it up into 2 isn't that high.

Bythebay12 wrote:

What do you think you could have run for 800m or 5000m on the day of your 3:56? It seems like you have very good natural speed so that coupled with your durability seems to have developed your slow twitch and slower intermediate fibers to an exceptional level.

I would guess 1:48 and 13:30-40, but no idea - I do very little workouts that could be used as "indicators"

sjruns wrote:

Thanks for all the info OP. Classic letsrun assholes trying to derail a quality thread.

Although you did not race any other distances, are there any workouts you've repeated pre and post high mileage that you can give some insight to times and rpe? I'm also intrigued by your 48 400 estimation. You could probably try a 400 TT without moving too much else in a week.

How long were you an 80-90mpw runner? How much of your quality work was aerobic/anaerobic focused at that stage? Thinking about how much of a novel stimulus this easy volume is.

How long do you plan to continue this training style? I know Canova has often commented that his marathon groups will run 140+ for no more than two or so years, as they've adapted after that time and need a new stimulus

The 48 estimation is based on an old staple with my college coach that we would do 1-2 times per year right before peaking: 200, 400, 200 with 8-10 minutes recovery.

I hit 50 for the 400 once, but normally 51 low, although never running it completely all out. The 200s I would be 24 low.

I ran 80-90 per week for about 3-4 years. Before that 50-60 per week. I saw a big jump when I increased to 80-90 after one year, then remained about the same.

1km reps are what I do most often, and I would say thatI run the same times with lower rpe, but I find it harder to go any faster. After 8-10 I used to start to struggle to do anything more physically. Now I feel like I could churn them out all day. Between reps I notice a bigger difference, recovering a lot faster. When I do sessions on the track getting towards 60 second pace per 400 after a lot of work, I feel much fresher and my body feels more relaxed.

I have been doing it for 18 months now. As I said, during season I dropped down to 110-120 for about 3 months. I will continue for at least another year, but I really enjoy running, so probably more.

I haven't heard that quote from Canova, but I would be interested to read more. I did some quick googling but didn't come across anything, so would appreciate the link if you're able to dig it up!

The Con wrote:

OP - Two questions.

1). Why don't you think more runners try this training? Nearly all of the top middle distance guys (1500m-10,000m) are training in the 75-100 miles per week range. They do long tempos, strides, hills, etc. Not quite the volume of the threshold work and not always three workouts a week but you see very similar training across the board of the top elites and sub-elites.

2). Do you think such high mileage is necessary (i.e. does it have to be 140+ or can you see similar results on 100, 110, 120, etc.)

1) Not sure. I think a variety of reasons: either injury, or fear of injury. People run mostly with groups, and this type of training does not fit the masses. Many people base their training on what they've historically done, it's not often you hear about people really shaking up what they're doing (Cam Levins comes to mind as someone who really did). I would argue a lot of top runers in the 1500-5000 area are running a lot more than 100 though.

2) No, I don't think so. There is definitely an element of diminishing returns. How much though, I don't know. I certainly don't think I've found the last 10-20 miles detrimental yet though. Perhaps because that is largely from adding in a short triple run, it is very easy to recover from, but I don't know if I actually benefit from that triple run. I'll continue to do it though, simply because I like it.

OP (on a different device) wrote:

Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:

Also the fast twitch muscle fibres need to develop aerobic capabilities as far as they can to excel in the mainly aerobic races. I wonder how efficient milage really is at doing this?

I believe Peter Snell had strong opinions on this, and believed something about having to do 20 mile runs at under 6 minute pace in order to train fast twitch fibres. Maybe someone could chime in who knows more about how/why Snell thought this - I've heard varying reports on what he meant.

Yes it seems to be different approaches to training fast fibres. Of course to do anaerobic speedwork in various forms, to perform heavy or maximal strength excecises, but also to fatigue the slow twitch muscles in long runs to finally activate fast twitch. I am sure the mechanics of the long-run approach is different than direct use in speed and maximal efforts. I read somewhere they were more indirectly used but know too little about it. Would be great if someone knows more.

OP (on a different device) wrote:

Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:

thanks, have you experience some change in how you feel during mile races and how you have approached them? 3.56 needs a strong run all the way, but I am talkingn about a steady hard effort vs a float with a fast last lap and kicking ability?

I have felt much stronger in a way that is hard to explain when I shift through gears towards the end of a race. Almost like I am more in control of my legs whilst under pressure. Actual fatigue and deficit feels similar after a race though. Within training, in say, 16x1km, I find I recover very fast between reps, and after 20 seconds or so genuinely feel almost ready to go again.

I have had periods in my training doing more volume (ran 600 hours a year) and I both felt and knew I had a very solid pair of legs that I could push hard without being afraid of cracking down. The mental aspect is maybe more important than we think. Therefore doing what you believe in is as important as doing something that works (both is needed kindof)

OP (on a different device) wrote:

General week would be:

Monday: 10, 3, 10

Tuesday: 10, 15x1km

Wednesday: 14, 4, 6

Thursday: 10, 4, 45 minute tempo

Friday: 8

Saturday: 30x400, 8

Sunday: 20, 6

I’m actually surprised how similar this looks to the training of many Kenyan marathoners.

There are short term study (4 weeks) of the effect of how to administer the same number of high intensity workouts, either as a 1 week block followed by 3 weeks mostly easy mileage and the normal way wih an even distribution. The performance was significantly better for the block-training model. this does not answer the periodization of milage. A one-person study over one year (cycling) showed dramatic improvements in VO2max and sustained power following a block model as I mention. One can still with 1-2 week blocks have a longer classic periodization approach.

What I find very interesting with your experiment is how you desribe that you recover better from the fast workouts. that is a very valid point that perhaps many forget. By getting in better aerobic shape, one can recover and respond better to quality and even add more quality. So the rate of improvement can be increased. The low milage models would probably not achieve this to the same degree. Of course it is possible to sustain a larger volume of say 1k or 400 reps with support from other training than high milage, like moderate support runs (tempo, moderate).

OP thank you for posting and responding.

Would you be interested in posting a few more weeks of your training?

Do you think the benefits your getting are from the longer workouts and not the mileage. Another way to ask this is: if you had done 90 miles per week but kept the same long workouts in on 15x1k, 45 minute tempo, 30x400, do you think you would have run just as fast? I'm wondering how to apply this to the masses. Most of Bowerman rums 80-90 miles per week but they are doing long threshold/tempo days similar to what you are doing (although they mostly do one-four mile repeats but same idea).

This is all I could find about Canova and lifetime highs when it comes to mileage. He shows several years above 150 even, but does eventually bring it back down for the later stages of the career, but also says it is just an example. (The thread linked has the whole post, which is quite long)

I would also be curious in seeing a raw training log of yours, even just a very basic one like malmo has posted before. Of course, that could be a lot of work you don't want to do, but it would be really appreciated!

An example:

Unless you are Bryce Richards from Kansas.

I just don't understand how some posts based solely on anecdotal information get so much traction, especially when they may not even be true. Then we have threads loaded with great information and much data and they get 1 response and then die. My son significantly dropped his 1500 time this year by dropping his mileage but nobody wants to hear that.

I think what likely happened here is that to run 150 MPW he had to slow down and pay attention to how his body is feeling.

The only "law" of training is stimulus --> response. You push your body past its limits and then let it recover. Improving at running is about applying the correct momentary stress on your body and then letting it recover before repeating that cycle.

One common problem with low-mileage runners is that every workout is either hard or moderate. The body is constantly stressed under that scenario and never receives the correct balance of training and rest. A well-coached low mileage runner can improve if they manage that stress ratio correctly.

When you are running 150 MPW you have absolutely no choise but to listen to your body and take easy days easy. The "high" metabolic efforts just cant be done. It's a low-key way to make sure you aren't smashing every day.

Adding in some strides to maintain speed is a get low-risk way to maintain speed at high distances. When I have done high volume work only I get slower and lose all snap. Adding in just 6 50M strides on most days really helps so much.

And you only really need like 6-8 weeks of really high intensity work to peak. Anymore than that and you fall off the wagon.

Real Dealer wrote:

I just don't understand how some posts based solely on anecdotal information get so much traction, especially when they may not even be true. Then we have threads loaded with great information and much data and they get 1 response and then die. My son significantly dropped his 1500 time this year by dropping his mileage but nobody wants to hear that.

So go start a thread. No one wants to hear it on this thread cause you’re being confrontational and not helping make conducive conversation about training.

I think you’ll also find there are lots of threads about people who dropped their mileage and improved.

great thread op. thanks