How do runners get so fast with so little volume?

because wrote:

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.

No it doesn't.

And some of the guys never break 20. My team this year ranged from 15:30-24:45. Most were around 18:30.

1+ hrs a day of running & quality workouts consistently isn't super low volume in my opinion. Sure, he could be running more.

Knight and Schweizer won NCAA titles on 50 MPW.

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?

its easier to do high volume on the bike than on the roads

Well famously Seb Coe was a pretty low mileage athlete but he - or his father or coach George Gandy - thought that low mileage ( quality not quantity ) plus - and this is very important- a weekly strengthening work session in the gym was the way to go.

portsea57 wrote:

Well famously Seb Coe was a pretty low mileage athlete but he - or his father or coach George Gandy - thought that low mileage ( quality not quantity ) plus - and this is very important- a weekly strengthening work session in the gym was the way to go.

When Coe reported his mileage there were things he didn't include in the total. Warmups, cooldowns, who knows what else. If you believe him he says he was running 40 mpw or something. In those days there was hesitance among the Brit runners to let everyone know what they were really doing.

Keira D'Amato is another example: 80 MPW = American record in the marathon. I think we misjudge the effect of genetics and talent has in the sport.

You can't beat genetics.

Remember the kid in elementary school who could run a 5-minute mile?

I think natural talent has a lot to do with it. In high school I played basketball 8 months out of the year and ran track for 4 months. I had basically no distance base, trained with intervals from 200 - 1000m, but had an 800m pb of 1:56. Not that 1:56 is earth shattering but based on my training I wouldn't think I could have gone that fast. However, even as a kid I won a race called the mini-marathon, which I believe was about 1 1/2 miles, 3 years in a row and I did absolutely no training. All I did was play touch football with my friends, little league baseball, and play at the playground. However, I could go run that 1 1/2 miles like it was nothing.

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?

optimal is the most you can sustain without injury. to compare running to a low impact sport like cycling is dumb. you can cycle 30 hours a week if you want to, but most people cant run 10 hours a week without injury.

#1. Talent.

#2. Running is selective for "fast responders" to training. It's almost impossible to sustain >15 hours a week of running without injury and that is relatively little compared to other endurance sports. No way could you be world class in cycling, xc skiing, distance swimming, rowing, etc... on that little volume. The best runners tend to be the outliers that respond well to low training volumes because that is what the sport demands. If running was the type of sport where high volume training was possible, then a totally different type of athlete would win distance races.

just pointing out the obvious here wrote:

because wrote:

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

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. You have obviously never done any bike racing.

hhtdp0 wrote:

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.

It's at least 4 to 1 ratio if you do both biking and running seriously. Obviously if you are untrained for cycling the ratio is less.

Colby Alexander

Who is to say that Ben Flanagan's training was optimal? You don't know how much master that time could have been with more training volume.

tribike wrote:

I was watching the coffee club episode with Ben Flanagan, and he said that he ran a 61:48 off of 70mpw. That's probably under 8 hours of aerobic work a week. In any other endurance sport, that low of volume would be unthinkable! E.g. 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).

How does one achieve aerobic development on such low volume? Do you substitute with a lot more threshold runs / intervals?

cb800 wrote:

I think natural talent has a lot to do with it. In high school I played basketball 8 months out of the year and ran track for 4 months. I had basically no distance base, trained with intervals from 200 - 1000m, but had an 800m pb of 1:56. Not that 1:56 is earth shattering but based on my training I wouldn't think I could have gone that fast. However, even as a kid I won a race called the mini-marathon, which I believe was about 1 1/2 miles, 3 years in a row and I did absolutely no training. All I did was play touch football with my friends, little league baseball, and play at the playground. However, I could go run that 1 1/2 miles like it was nothing.

I think I know you. All I did was run through middle school, and the kid who didn't, but who played every other sports year-round dusted me at "Track and Field Day" and XC day every year.

XC Day?

A good runner can cover 10-14 miles in 1 hour on a tempo run. In that same time, a good cyclist can cover 25-30 miles (ratio is closer to 2-3:1). The only difference is that a cyclist can continue riding for much longer day in day out because of less wear and tear.

because wrote:

hhtdp0 wrote:

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.

It's at least 4 to 1 ratio if you do both biking and running seriously. Obviously if you are untrained for cycling the ratio is less.