Running Times Article - "How Much Mileage"

get with the program wrote:

AK-49 wrote:

Now that's pretty funny! Were you ever interviewed for this article?

jtupper = Daniels

And we are fortunate to have him posting here.

I know. I understand.

Was he actually interviewed for the article or did Karp use quotations taken from another source. jtupper's post seemed to indicate that he was curious to see what he said....so "get with the program," unless you're in the loop that could leave a little up to interpretation. That was my question.

Typical

Perhaps what jtupper meant was that

(a) he knew he had been interviewed, and

(b) he wanted to see what selection of his comments made it into the article.

As it happens what jtupper was quoted as saying was the best sentence in there. Basically, run as much as you can given the constraints of your other responsibilities and your potential for injury.

To be sure, conveying relatively subtle concepts like periodization, optimization and individual variation of mileage is trickier than saying there's a consistent level of mileage that's about right for everyone. But that doesn't excuse an article that doesn't even attempt to give the case for higher mileage.

get with the program wrote:

I know. I understand.

Was he actually interviewed for the article or did Karp use quotations taken from another source. jtupper's post seemed to indicate that he was curious to see what he said....so "get with the program," unless you're in the loop that could leave a little up to interpretation. That was my question.

As a former athlete who finds herself misquoted and misrepresented all the time by Karp, I would hardly be shocked to find that jtupper was quoted out of context.

Jason will do whatever he can to make a buck.

Adam Smith wrote:

The general consensus seems to be that for most runners, anything over 70 miles a week provides very little benefit. However, the column really didn't do a good job of trying to explain why all elite and sub-elite marathon runners are all over 100 mpw. When asked, Noaks simply said he didn't know.

OK, I'm probably going to get roasted for saying this, but whatever...

Here's what I get from reading Lydiard's stuff (and Nobby, et al) and is fairly well agreed on:

a) 100 miles per week was the optimum to shoot for, not the maximum possible

b) you can definitely run more, but it's counterproductive because you have to go too slow

c) Lydiard changed to time-based rather than milage-based training after starting to work with slower runners because their 100 mile weeks gave the same result as b) above, and

d) base training is the highest milage period, and all others are somewhat less

When I was 20 and much faster than I am now, 100 miles per week took about the same amount of time that 75 does for the current old & fat version of me. So there's one point. Also if you're going to throw out one number that applies to all parts of a training cycle (which is a really stupid thing to do anyway) then the average is naturally going to be a bit less than the maximum.

Noakes did say in his book that the empirical evidence suggests 10 hours of training per week is the optimum (and if you;re going by experience or observation you don't need a specific reason other than "it works"). Lydiard's runners got their 100 miles done in that amount of time or less, and his time-based training in "Running the Lydiard Way" totaled 9.5 to 10.5 hours per week. Which for your average guy chasing a Boston qualifier or trying to break 40:00 for 10k (you know, the subscription base) works out to about...70 miles per week. Maybe more, maybe less. But as a general number it's in the ballpark.

Yes, if you want to be faster than that you'll need to do more than 70 miles per week. But if you're trying to break 30:00 or 2:22, you're going to get significantly more miles out of your +/- 10 hours per week...maybe as much as 100.

Unfortunately, no.

Don't blame the magazine except, possibly, for allowing someone with esssentially no competitive or coaching credentials to stain its pages. Leave it to a would-be entrepreneur who's supposedly been chasing a Ph.D. in ex phys since Reagan was in office to wave VO2 Max around as if it's the be-all, end-all of distance-running performance.

As malmo has pointed out in the past, if you draw a graph of the V02 Max values of top runners vs. their times -- say, in the <28:00 10K or <2:11 marathon range -- you will see a scatter plot. As a middle-of-the-pack type gets fitter, sure, his or her VO2 Max is likely to increase, but once you get to a certain fitness level there are intangible factors that clearly take over (if not, people wouldn't "blindly" run far in excess of 70 miles week while seeing their performances increase non-negligibly).

Whatever it is that contributes to better running for a lot of people at workloads exceeding 70 a week (Art says economy and that sounds like as good a label as any), it's there. It could be a boost in "recoverability" thanks to the overexpression of certain muscle proteins (enzymes); it might be some other cellular factor that leaves a subtle biochemical trail but exerts a powerful effect. Neither of these can be conveniently measured by hooing someone up to a tube and collecting expired gases while the tested athlete runs on a belt.

Like the quantity we call "consciousness," we may not be able to presently frame what happens in Hansonian mileage ranges in satisfactory laboratory terms, but empirical evidence gives the lie to the idea that marathoners, in particular, are apt to see only "small" gains beyond an average of 10 miles a day.

In terms of using a physical variable to predict performance at the top level, you'd be just as on the mark going with hair color or shoe size, or, in athletic terms, arguing that batting or driving practice above 100 swings a day doesn't do any good because bat or club-head velocity won't increase beyond that total. The argument for 70-mile weeks is entirely psychosocial (many people genuinely don't have the time, the durability or the energy), not one a knowledgable observer concerned with performance and training-vs.-results data would make.

JimG: Do you have a handle on the age and training mileage of the average RT reader? I suspect the age to be 40+, and that 70 miles would represent a significant step up in mileage. In the sense that the article will encourage runners to aim for a sizable, but attainable mileeage increase, it would definitely serve the "more is better" approach to marathon training. And if someone got significant gains going from say, 50 to 70 miles, I would be very surprised if they didn't at some point continue to work the mileage upward.

Of course, since the "average" Letsrun poster runs 100 mpw and 14:30 for 5K, this article is suitable only for derision here, despite the fact that almost no one has read it.

I don't blame the mag, specifically, but just the nature of that genre and the modern mainstream mass media market. Like television networks (and unlike books, though that's not to give a free pass across the board to books and their authors), they exist essentially to bring appealing demographics to advertisers, mostly by giving the audience what it wants and telling it what it wants to hear and reinforce its beliefs no matter how irrational and refraining from challenging its deep-set notions or comfort level. Even Pfitzinger, great as he and his columns are, probably has to temper his work with that editorial tone or has it tempered for him.

Sometimes it's better to just say that you dont't know. Nobody knows. As was mentioned above, there have been no long term studies into what the benefits are of high mileage-100 plus miles/week. He can't lie and say it will further improve VO2max, or lactate turnpoint, or running economy. The truth is, nobody knows. What we d know is there is a correlation between elite athletes and high mileage. Whether it's genetics that allow them to train that high or if improvements involve neuromuscular adaptations, or whatever, nobody can say. In the grand scheme of things, exercise physiology is a very new field. People are just now realizing that some things traditionally thought aren't exactly correct. How many people still believe that VO2max is the biggest predictor of performance for events like the marathon? Fact is, things are changing and research is helping. I do know of a group of high mileage runners that could supply years of data, but if anybody is willing to put that kind of time and effort into something, is hard to say.

My 2 cents

Luke Humphrey, M.S.

"anyone can put in the time"

Yes anyone can put in the time, BUT can they put in the recovery? I coach three solid women runners, one is running Boston, all have full time jobs.

I always let their response to training adjust the volume, not some number I think they should hit. Interesting that when the lady running Boston had a 20 hour work week the volume went over 100 when the norm is and was about 90ish.

My other runner averages about 60 miles and getting close to 70 (1:13 1/2 and 51 15k this year).

The other runner was getting obsessed with volume and would run only the hit 75 miles per week. She was hurt all the time. She took 2 months off and averaged about 35 miles / week for 12 weeks + cross training and has ran a 34:0 10k (30 second PR) this year off that.

So while yes volume is a big piece if you can't put in the recovery time then forget it your wasting your time. My goal for these athletes is performance. I could give a rip what volume they run as long as they race fast when it counts.

true, no one knows for certain, and we never will be able to do because in the end every runner will be different, what works for one might not work for another

but there are general principles and to say there hasn't been some significant research on those belittles the research of people like lydiard and daniels. It seems to me they did exactly that - they just tracked different runners and different programs and used what worked, not necessarily because they knew why physiologically, just that it worked

which i think, is how lydiard came to his 10 hours a week.

[quote]Humphrey wrote:

Sometimes it's better to just say that you dont't know. Nobody knows. As was mentioned above, there have been no long term studies into what the benefits are of high mileage-100 plus miles/week. He can't lie and say it will further improve VO2max, or lactate turnpoint, or running economy. The truth is, nobody knows. What we d know is there is a correlation between elite athletes and high mileage. Whether it's genetics that allow them to train that high or if improvements involve neuromuscular adaptations, or whatever, nobody can say.\quote]

Not in response to anyone in particular because there have been lots of good comments here. No doubt that going by time, rather than mileage, will apply to a greater variety of runners. For example, many elite runners rely on 20-23 mile long runs, which typically take about 2 hours to 2-1/2 to complete. If you had a 4 hour (marathon runner) do 22 mile long runs it would take nearly 4 hours -- a run that most elite would not select for their long run. If interested in a quick research study, ask a bunch of elite runners how much time they prefer spending in their typical long runs. And even the answer to that would not indicate the optimum duration of a long run. Sure, improvements in VO2max tend to hit a plateau, as will threshold and economy, and so will all factors that lead to improved performance, including your attitude about your training and racing. If you can measure continued physiological improvements, but at the same time start getting less positive vibes about how you feel or your attitude toward competition, or about the time you are spending doing one thing and time you are taking away from other things, race performance may not show any improvement. People tend to praise someone for a new record, then when that record is broken by someone else, the training of that earlier record holder is suddenly questioned -- "If he had done it this way think how much greater he would have been." It's great that there is not just one absolutely correct way to success. If there was we wouldn't need any coaches. I wonder if the NCAA has considered that possibility yet; could save money by just printing THE training program and give the important sports more cash to work with. Man, this aging thing sure has its advantages.

There might be an element of imitating others who have been successful rather than figuring out what really works. Sports is notorious for copying successes, often times, I think, without understanding it. There is a lot of this on this board where people think that if they just run like _________ then they will get better.

Also, why are you disappointed that Noakes or anyone else does not have an answer. That is being honest.

As a physiologist, I suspect there are factors that we just cannot measure well enough yet. We have a yard (meter) stick for a job that needs a micrometer especially when talking about the very small changes that can make a big difference at the world class level.

I think that what is happening is that you are dealing with such a small subgroup that running 100 mpw may well be beneficial for them, but for others it will only drive them into the ground.

This is a legitimate question to ask.

It is also not necessarily about the volume but how that volume is distributed over various intensities as well.

Tuone Udaina wrote:

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.

You do not get "stronger" running low intensity. You get endurance.

You get increased capillaries and mitochondria from higher intensity stuff as well. You just cannot do as much of it.

bad connection wrote:

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 VO2max is correlated very well with performance in large populations. It is when one gets into homogenous populations that the relationship breaks down. If you do not think VO2max is important then train someone with a low VO2max. Is it the only factor--certainly not and no sport scientist will say it is. However, you had better have a sufficiently high VO2max if you want to be a world class athlete.

But the only way someone can learn if they can recover from high mileage is by having a go at running high mileage and really sticking with it for a while to see if you adjust or not. I know that when I'd get to a new, higher level, I would ofetn spend a couple of weeks thinking that I just couldn't handle it. I was exhausted all the time, but I'd keep on and I'd be able to handle it.

I think that today people often jack up their volume, feel sore and tired all the time, then decide that they must be overtraining because so much of the literature is geared to that point of view.

I hear ya flightless--you can be interviewed directly, but your words can be turned into something partially or completely different and that was why I asked.I'd really like to see this article but it does sound like a doozy! Did he report on the number of respondents from his OT questionnaire? A valid questionnaire should have a representative sample of the population. Generally, you'd want a minimum of a 50% response rate. So if he sent out 350-400 questionnaires and got a 10% response rate, you'd wonder. Certainly wouldn't pass any scientific muster. Ideally, he'd want to either everyone at the trials or else have a random/representative sample with a majority of people responding. So if he sampled 20% of the 400 and got an 80% response rate, that could be a fairly valid survey. Did he check for non-response bias?

flightless wrote:

Perhaps what jtupper meant was that

(a) he knew he had been interviewed, and

(b) he wanted to see what selection of his comments made it into the article.

you may not quote me--you have my sympathies, as that must be very frustrating. Best to move on and just continue kicking butt.

jtupper--very interesting re: the relative optimality of 10 hr/week. Couple of questions, though. Are there studies out there that compared physiological parameters (say blood volume, rbc, capillary density, or muscle biopsies) of training groups who did something like 7, 10, 12 hours/week? If so could you post the citation?