How do runners get so fast with so little volume?

Talent.

Most sports are dominated by talent and physical gifts to perform well at that sport. Sure, lifestyle growing up and opportunities certainly play a role. But running talent usually finds itself in people by the time they're in high school. You either have it or you don't. Pretty easy to discover.

Experiment626 wrote:

Talent.

+1

tribike wrote:

in XC skiing in the US, you need 600-700 hours to be competitive at the college level (and that is an extremely low level relative to the world stage).

Per year? What a strange metric.

Anyway, as others have provided: talent.

These answers are dumb. The top cyclists, triathletes, and swimmers are also extremely talented. Let me put it this way: in other sports the top athletes train 300mpw. Are people just bad at training for running, or is 70-120mpw actually optimal?

Measuring time makes sense physiologically, as does yearly training: elite endurance athletes other sports train 20+ hours per week. Is running just easier, or is it less competitive?

tribike2 wrote:

These answers are dumb. The top cyclists, triathletes, and swimmers are also extremely talented. Let me put it this way: in other sports the top athletes train 300mpw. Are people just bad at training for running, or is 70-120mpw actually optimal?

running is a lot more wear and tear on the body. you literally CAN'T run 300mpw in a useful way without destroying your body.

70-120mpw is optimal in the way that it's the most volume you can get while still doing effective quality.

you could run more with no quality but it would not be more useful than lower mileage and workouts.

tribike2 wrote:

These answers are dumb. The top cyclists, triathletes, and swimmers are also extremely talented. Let me put it this way: in other sports the top athletes train 300mpw. Are people just bad at training for running, or is 70-120mpw actually optimal?

You are…dumb. Running involves huge impact forces the other cardio sports don’t.

If you run 300 miles per week your bones will break.

As for why Flanagan can run a certain time off 70mpw that takes others 100mpw: As others have told you, it’s talent. For example, in cycling, the bike is a HUGE equalizer. Body types that could never run can do well on the bike because the bike hides all their biomechanical flaws.

If a distance runner could run at a reasonable effort for say, 6-8 hours a day, like swimmers or cyclists do they'd probably race faster. But swimmers and cyclists are not being beaten up by gravity the whole time they're training like runners are. That said, Flanagan's mileage at 70 is on the low end. It's not hard to find people who did twice that much. Get much beyond that and it generally becomes counter productive.

It's because volume decreases on a cubic magnitude, while surface area decreases on a squared magnitude.

This means your very low-volume runners, like Bekele or 800+ GOAT Augustine Choge, have a higher relative surface area than a higher-volume runner like Ben True or David Rudisha.

This greater surface area per volume allows them to dissipate heat much quicker, a great advantage at all distances 5000 meters and up.

tribike2 wrote:

These answers are dumb. The top cyclists, triathletes, and swimmers are also extremely talented. Let me put it this way: in other sports the top athletes train 300mpw. Are people just bad at training for running, or is 70-120mpw actually optimal?

First you should not attack people, who answer to your thread. That is not a good style.

Second, the weekly milage is often wrongly given. Some do not count correctly, some lie.

Third, there is running economy which plays a big part.

Forth, some people are small and light weight and have a bonus for running.

John Wesley Harding wrote:

tribike wrote:

in XC skiing in the US, you need 600-700 hours to be competitive at the college level (and that is an extremely low level relative to the world stage).

Per year? What a strange metric.

Anyway, as others have provided: talent.

Yes talent is important but so is consistency with training. I live in a city where I watch an athlete run 100k per week and is a 3:49 miler. Talent is everywhere this weekend a 15 year old runs 3:48 for 1500m. Train smart and race fast is the motto.

John Wesley Harding wrote:

tribike wrote:

in XC skiing in the US, you need 600-700 hours to be competitive at the college level (and that is an extremely low level relative to the world stage).

Per year? What a strange metric.

Anyway, as others have provided: talent.

That's not a strange metric at all. It's used in most endurance sports not including running.

a half-marathon is also 1hr for fast people. Road cyclists have to perform for a lot more than that, hence they need more volume. Makes sense, right?

Miles per week is a pretty meaningless metric as well.

Americans get brainwashed in HS to thinking that weekly training volume is what determines your readiness to race.

“Talent” has some effect on performance, but most people just don’t know how to train appropriately. They just run 10 hours of week and think that’s good enough.

tribike2 wrote:

These answers are dumb. The top cyclists, triathletes, and swimmers are also extremely talented. Let me put it this way: in other sports the top athletes train 300mpw. Are people just bad at training for running, or is 70-120mpw actually optimal?

1 hour of running = 4-5 hours of cycling.

Talent/genetics. You get a bunch of HSers & they all run 40-50 mpw & do the same training. Some run sub-16 right away off of that, others break 17 or 18 by senior year.

No substitute for hard work but you need both. Flanagan is undertrained which is a good thing because he probably has a ton of upside if he can stay healthy enough to run 100 mile weeks. Others might need 100mpw to crack 2:30 or 2:40. 70ish or 75ish for the half.

Talent matters and of course smart training helps developing that talent as well.

When I ride my bike for 60 min my average heart rate was 140. Later I went for a 60 min run and my average heart rate was 129. I agree there is less impact so you cannot run as cycling but not 1 to 4 ratio. You can get a great workout in same amount of time if you don't coast and hold your watts. Possibly better cardio than running since you can go harder more often. Same goes with swimming as you can push harder with risk of injury. I come from a running background.