Running Times Article - "How Much Mileage"

It's that kind of shit that got us in that mess for 20 years that we're just getting out of.

Of course no study finds benefit beyond 70mpw -- who is going to participate in a 10,000 mile, 2 year study?

Aerobic uptake may have a ceiling w/ respect to volume, but you're still going to make gains in capilarization, mitochondrial content and overall strength, not to mention fuel management for the marathon.

Focused too much on things like VO2max and the like...

Scientists seem to get caught up in measurable things and when VO2max doesn't increase when mileage is increased past 70ish mpw, then they think 70 is ideal. What they forget is that VO2max is only a very small part of the picture and that we are worried about PERFORMANCE. Vo2max and performance are not highly correlated, so it doesn't matter if it stops. There are other physiological aspects that increase due to more mileage.

Got to be careful with things we can measure now. They always become the next "key" thing in science.

First off, this article was written, edited, and laid out well before the RW purchase - that's the reality of magazine production. So no, it does not represent an indication of a "dumbing down" to come in RT. If anything, the new ownership has given us a mandate to become more edgy, hard-core, "non-RW" if you will than before, and hopefully you'll see that going forward.

The target audience for the mileage article was the serious, but not elite or sub-elite runner - those people have their own coaches, schedules, etc. The question was how much mileage is necessary for someone who aims to be competitive at the local or regional level. The author's conclusion was the point of diminishing returns seems to be around 70 MPW, at which point you're better off adding strength, plyo, etc. training to get more benefit than from a few more miles. No question 100 may be better than 70, but for 90% of runners, not the Brian Sells of the world, is the additional risk of injury worth it - the conclusion was no.

Thanks for clarifying Jim. However, unless I missed it, the article didn't really explain why elite or sub-elite runners all go over 100 mph. To your point, maybe this was not the intent of the article but I was rather disappointed when Noaks was asked the question and he simply said "I don't know" like there was no reasons out there for anyone to go above 70 mpw. Maybe RT could do a follow up article on why some runners do 100-140 mph even if most of us never will get to that level. It would be an interesting follow up.

I have to say - I am not a subscriber to running times but their magazine has impressed me more and more lately. The fact that they write an article geared towards the sub-elite runner with comments from Noakes, Daniels etc is encouraging. And I have to agree - for the average sub-elite (I'm talking 2:20's marathoner), running 100+ miles a week and working full time is not always the best strategy. I've spent the last 12 years running anywhere from 60-100 miles per week and working full time. With 6 months of 90-100 mile weeks, I managed 2:29. I was chronically bothered by nagging injuries and my intensity suffered. On 75 miles per week with a good, hard long run, I dropped down to 2:23. Thinking I could run sub 2:20, I spent 18 months out of the next 2 years consistently above 85mpw - with the other 6 months dedicated to some form of peaking strategy. My intensity always suffered and I never ran close to my PR's. I finally cut my mileage back to 70mpw and for the past 2 years I've set PR's at every distance from 5k to the marathon. Not everybody benefits from high mileage. And I know some dipsh#%t is going to come on here and claim my PR's resulted from my years of high mileage but I disagree. I think you have to balance intensity and mileage. Talent takes many forms - some of the real elite runners are elite because they can tolerate high mileage and maintain intensity without injury. Just because they can doesn't mean its the best strategy for the rest of us. Now I'm going to go subscribe to Running times and I don't care if they've been bought out by Rodale because I want to support this Jim guy who has the balls to come on here and defend his magazine. I guarantee Galloway would never post on here.

Thanks Jim wrote:

And I know some dipsh#%t is going to come on here and claim my PR's resulted from my years of high mileage but I disagree.

Your PRs resulted from your years of high mileage.

You would not have run as fast had you stayed at 70 the whole time. And, as you know, you'd run better if you didn't have a job.

People are over-focused on mileage, because it is such an easy thing to quantify. If there were easy numbers to measure intensity, or outside stressors (job, family,sleep,etc) which all equally affect training, would we all be so hung up on arguing 70 vs. 100 miles/week? This is the difference between information and knowledge. The former is what is provided by a magazine, the latter by a (good) coach.

Little benefit isn't the same as no benefit or negative results. If you're a non-elite who's running well at 70 mpw, but not qualifying for the OTs or winning race money, why not spend the rest of your time enhancing your life in other ways besides running? Going from being a 2:40 marathoner to a 2:35 marathoner just may not be worth the extra mileage. But if you're already or almost a national or world class runner, even a very little benefit may be worth a lot to you.

Tuone Udaina wrote:

Thanks Jim wrote:

And I know some dipsh#%t is going to come on here and claim my PR's resulted from my years of high mileage but I disagree.

Your PRs resulted from your years of high mileage.

...

lol.

People often say that high mileage is the easier way to go and that's why it gets so much emphasis. But I always wonder about the experiences of the people who say that, i.e., how much mileage have they done and for how long?

Granted, on any given day, going out for a fifteen mile run may seem easier than running fifteen quarters. But add a second five to seven mile run to that fifteen mile run, then do the same thing the next day, and the day after that and keep with that for several months and it becomes really challenging.

Which is really the easier schedule? One fifteen to twenty mile run a week, a five mile tempo run, an interval session and four runs in the five to ten mile range or a tewnty mile run one day and six days with a ten mile run every morning and again at night? People may have different takes on this but I don't really know many people anymore who can answer that question based on the experience of having done both sorts of training.

I have and I would say the second schedule, done continuously, is much harder. I think most people who say that running a lot of miles is easier than doing "quality" training get up to something like 80-90 a week and call that "high mileage." It really isn't.

Tuone Udaina wrote:

Thanks Jim wrote:

And I know some dipsh#%t is going to come on here and claim my PR's resulted from my years of high mileage but I disagree.

Your PRs resulted from your years of high mileage.

You would not have run as fast had you stayed at 70 the whole time. And, as you know, you'd run better if you didn't have a job.

So how long is that high mileage going to benefit me? - its been 2 1/2 years since I ran over 75 miles in 1 week and I recently ran a 40sec marathon PR.

Truthfully we could argue this forever because its next to impossible to truly know what exactly results in improvement in any given individual. However, I do firmly believe that I perform better off lower mileage and higher intensity.

If you are responding my post you missed the point entirely. I am stating that focusing on mileage as THE MOST IMPORTANT VARIABLE is misleading and counterproductive, and is an artifact of how easy it is to quantify (not to run). I have trained at every combination of mileage/intensity/stress below 120 miles/week (I'm a miler), and it's all about context and the overall workoad management. This is the ART of training vs. the "formula" method so often seen in articles (and message boards).You are also implying that "harder" is "better", which is dead wrong. There is this vexing word that you might acquaint yourself with: optimal. It's how all the greatest athletes and coaches train, whether using "high" or "low" mileage.

This is the never ending debate of quantity vs. quality. Not sure it has to be one or the other but what works for one person doesn't always work for someone else. I am a big mileage guy (up to 140 mpw) but I also run lots of quality as well. My wife is a low mileage runner (35 mpw) and doesn't really run hard workouts and she hits her PRs. Do I feel like I am a more of a runner then her because I run big mileage? No. I wish I could hit my PRs on 35 mpw but it doesn't happen.

Is there a link to the RT article?

The article came from the May print isssue. I just checked their website and it only has the April issue.

The capilaries you built during that time will always stay with you. And though your overall mitochondrial count will drop some with the lower volume, you're still training enough to where you're not losing a whole lot. The fact that you have a good number of miles behind you will always be to your benefit.

Good point, I agree. I think anyone that says that high mileage is easy hasn't done it.

This is call a diminishing return. If I'm reading the article correctly, it states that the most effective mileage volume is 70 mpw. This is not saying there's no benefit to 100+. This is simply saying you get the most bang for the buck out of 70.

I have always believed this is just about the sweet spot. I get fit running 70 mpw and can run near my capabilities. I run a little faster on 90 mpw, but its a lot more work and takes substantially more planning, caution to not get hurt, extra care on sleep and nutrition, etc.

It's different for everyone, of course, but there's a nice life to running balance at around 70-75 mpw.

A lot of physiologists who study running focus too much on Vo2max, Lactate Threshold and other such Metabolic Effects. This is because it's relatively easy to see these effects in a 8-12 week study. What's harder to measure, because the effects take a long time to build up, is the increase in running economy over years. Also, the muscular contractility and muscular power benefit of years of higher mileage. If you can not translate the high Vo2max and the high Lactate Threshold into a long fast stride you won't run very fast. That power, that stride comes from the physical action of the muscles themselves. The ability of the muscles to absorb impact forces, to eccentrically contract, and to generate forward propulsion from these muscular contractions. Noakes mentions a little bit about this in his book.

The bottom line, it's impossible to do a year long, 5 year long, 10 year long study on the effects of mileage and other training on performance. There are also few studies that focus on performance, because it's much easier to test in a lab, to put someone on a treadmill and say go at x speed until you can no longer go (tests to exhaustion).

The tests and experiments have already been done. Look at the elite runners around the world. If running 50 or 70 miles a week was optimal for 5k, 10k, and/or marathon success it would be done by far more runners. Trial and error teaches us all we need to know.

Alan