High mileage doesn’t work for everyone

I ran 80 mpw for 3 weeks and got a stress fracture. Build up was okay, could have been better but not outrageous. Also was on my feet a lot during that time. So I think there are ways I could have avoided it but still. Volume isn't for everyone.

I’m with you. But, all things being equal, more volume will generally lead to better results particularly at longer distances 5k and up. For milers, high mileage is not necessary although you could argue this isn’t true anymore as the best in the world run very high mileage, eg Jakob.

I tend to not be able to handle more than about 70 mpw as any more than this and I start to feel tired, lethargic, and unproductive in my life outside running which I can’t really afford to do. However, I really believe that if most people SLOWED DOWN on their easy runs, they could handle a lot more volume than they realize, perhaps up to and more than 100 mpw. Look at the Japanese system. LOTS and LOTS of really slow jogging at 8+ minutes per mile and one or two quality sessions per week, typically around 200 km/week total or 120 miles. They have troves of sub-2:08 marathoners, so they must be doing something right. I’m also aware of at least two runners in my area who adopted the Japanese approach, slowed down on their easy runs (often as slow as 9-10 minutes/mile) and built up to 100 miles/week, and ran OTQs with time to spare.

I ran best in HS off moderate (50-55 mpw) mileage with a lot of moderate running. My easy days were about 7 miles around 6:00-6:10 pace.

OTQs are decent times, but I'd far rather see someone's training to get 2:08 than just 2:18. Anyone can run a 2:18 off decent, consistent mileage

I love these absolutes.

It is all about talent. If you don't have the talent then no amount of hard work will get you there. You need the requisite speed at shorter distances.

Anyway. The ability to handle high mileage without breaking down is also a talent.

Alan

I agree, but I'd want to see a "normal" person (i.e. someone with a non-running job) who runs as fast. It'd be far more useful for my own training to see someone who can run like 2:12 working instead of a 2:08 'pro' who would finish more than a mile back from the elites

50mpw and 100mpw is a big difference. You need to take time to get to those high totals to get the rewards and stay healthy/consistency is key. I go up 10mpw per year for my athletes. But if they have injury issues we don't go up. So if this year your running 50mpw and are healthy doing it next year we try for 60mpw and so on and so forth. We maintain that mileage for base phase thru the specific phase before tapering. I am a higher mileage guy but it takes years to get there. I have coached a couple low mileage athletes that just couldn't run a lot without getting hurt so you make adjustments for them like strength training or cross training. That's what individualization is for.

There’s a lot wrong with this post, scientifically and otherwise. But this statement really struck me. Running is all about the long-term goals, the ultimate achievements, truly testing what your body can do. If you’re not willing to sacrifice something, there’s no real personal reward. And the more you sacrifice, the greater the reward. If you can’t understand that, you might not be cut out to be a distance runner.

My sweet spot was 50-55 mile weeks with a 25m tempo, 1K interval day or long hill rep day, and a 90m long run. If I had a race 3K or shorter I'd run some fast 400s before it. If I had a road 10K or longer I'd run a 1:45 long run and depending a 45m tempo.

High mileage means something different for everybody.

This is a pretty bad take. 2:18 is still a great time, super shoes or not, especially for a runner with a full-time job. Worth noting that the guys I mentioned in my post are guys who ran in the mid to high 2:20s previously, so running under 2:18 was a big improvement.

I believe that Cam could have gotten to the same place with 120-140 mpw and wouldn’t have suffered through so many injuries. There’s a lot of B followed A logic on LR.

Slow running is working for me and going by HR (135-145). EZ pace, true EZ pace, is 9:45-9:55. I don't care if it looks bad on Strava. It's weird going that slow but it's nice having rested legs ready to kill big workouts. Volume is 35-40 right now, but am doing a slow build to avoid stress fractures.

40-drop to 33 this week, then 38-40-41-drop to 36, etc. then 43-44-drop to 38...

Anyone can run a 2:18? LOLOL nope. Agree 100% Alan. Most people not on LRC would be happy breaking 3:30 for women and 3:00 for men.

I would agree having had success on high and low mileage...but there are a few things to consider.

I think a lot of people against high mileage may be doing it wrong - it takes a different mindset (you have to be patient). You have to run much of it easy. You will probably need to run slower than you are normally used to. You probably won't get instant results - it takes time.

For those getting injured. I don't think high mileage itself causes injuries. Its more likely not listening to your body is the cause

- you have to eat right (stress fractures are more a result of poor nutrition)

- you have to recovery (meaning you can't set an arbitrary goal of X miles and expect it to work - this will lead to break down because you are not listening to your body). You do day-to-day. If one day you feel bad, or have pain then you take the day off of cut back.

When i spend a summer ave 160 I started with the goal of hitting 140, but had to accept that it would happen when it happened. the first few weeks I kept getting around 120 because i was having some Achilles pain. But because I listening to my body and took the day and half off each week, I did not get injured and once the pain cleared, I did hit 140.

The main thing I did was i took a day or 1/2 day off whenever i felt i needed it. This is very important. you have to be able to find the difference between being tired and needed a day off to recovery. Some of it is trail and error.

You have to lay the background for it. I started a whole year out slowly adapting:

- in the fall I experimented with going slower and longer on a single run - up to 20 at about 8:00 pace. This was so tough for me. These were torturous runs for someone who likes to go fast.

- then I experimented with doing two longish days back-to-back

- then in Winter I had one stretch where all I did was long easy days for 9 days in a row

(I did not know what to expect or have any preset distance goals in mind...I expected to be tired and slower as each day passed) I actually ended up doing 20 miles each day and held about the same pace. My log says these were 6:40-7:00, but even that seems too fast to me now.

- it was not until the following Summer that I was now ready to boost my mileage to consistently over 100, and this is coming from a low mileage runner who ran 800+ in college, and someone who hated long runs, and avoided them in college and after for years.

another thing that helps me cope with long slow running is making sure I do my faster days. I will be tired at first, so the quality will suffer, but it sure helps break up the boredom of long runs till you get used to them.

Nerds.

All I hear is excuses. Up your recovery and make it work if you truly want to be your best

My theory is that slow twitch guys shall focus on quality.

Less miles, but faster or more workouts per week.

Fast twitch guys should train more high milage / 80/20 volumen/quality.

I ran very poorly in college in part due to high mileage constantly breaking me down and not being able to prioritize running over school. Had I cut my mileage in half, I could have enjoyed moderate success for four years. At least run faster than I did in high school. But instead I forced myself into 90-100 mpw and never had a good race. Of course, I’m not blaming high mileage for my failure. I’m just saying I’d rather have those four years back and do things differently. I don’t give a flying f*ck if those miles are helping me now as an older runner. I’d rather be helping my college team in the moment.

Also this was purely an opinion post. Nothing scientific!