JK- Rationale for High mileage

Doctors are not running experts, nor running physiology experts. Cross training is not running specific, so while it may train the heart, it does little build running economy. Train according to your best interpretation to your physiology and history. know what your limits are. Read "Run With the Best" by Irv Ray and Tony Benson for a great understanding of proper training.

Trials of Miles wrote:

JK- I fully endorse your high mileage approach. But my doctor thinks 60-80 is all that is needed, "cross training takes care of the the rest."

What do you say to someone like this?

Exactly-running form and economy is extremely important and running high mileage helps this area tremendously.

Any distance requires a comfortable economical effort for the majority of the race. One thing I've notice is that high mileage, the simple process of running as often as possible smooths form out and helps burn off uneconomical body fat stores. After a year of 75 to 100 miles a week I've noticed that my low mileage runners have less bounce in their strides, they LOOK more like runners. This is probably just as important as the physiological changes that occur through this training.

I like my runners to look like they could balance a book on the top of their heads when they run.

Here's the logic the doctor probably has:

Aerobic development tops out at 70-75 miles per week. But, what is being left out beyond that is the strength, both in the aforementioned running economy and in developments made on microscopic levels: mitochondrial development, capilary growth, and overall strength. As it was mentioned above, it's all explained very well in Run With the Best.

I agree with the rationale for high mileage being form economy, but pponline.com (a UK site) presents an interesting phenomenon. The marathoners with the greatest economy are those who are used to the faster distances (5 and 10) since they used to running faster, and marathon pace is a step down. Now of course marathoners have excellent economy when it comes to running slower than marathon pace--the pace they often train at. Just a little proof for not leaving out those speed sessions, even when your event is the marathon.

Yes, Run With The Best does advocate high mileage, but I think the thing to remember is that high mileage is the easy part (relatively), the hard part is the intensity. There are a relatively large number of Americans running high mileage, but not many of them can do the interval sessions the Africans can do. In S. Africa, Tim Noakes has a group of runners who are about 13:45 5k runners and 61-62 min half marathoners and 2:08 marathoners on 50-60 mpw. They can do this because about 25-30% of their weekly mileage is at/above lactate threshold. Remember that even Run With the Best advocates never less than 15% mileage at/above LT. During the third Base perion, they argue for ~20-25% hard, and in the Pre-Comp, 30-40%. That is an extrordinarily high amount of intensity, but its important to remember that while the mileage does make you stronger and has many benefits, the intensity separates the champions from the other good runners. Lots of American collegiate/elite runners are running 90-120 mpw like Gebresellasie did in his track days, but I can't think of anybody who can do 10 x 1k in 2:28, or 16 x 400m in 56 w/ ~30 secs rest, like he does.

Who are these 2:08 marathoners who run 50-60 mpw? I don't believe. That is not possible.

maybe theyre on drugs or something.

50-60 mpw, you wont even get to the half-mark 26.2 mile course.

Intensity does play a key, i agree with that. But, how can one build a larger size house(fitness) off a lesser volume of building supplies(mileage)? I think americans need seperate fact from myth. And there is a lot of myth about what the africans do. And if some guys says he knows of coach so-and-so in s. africa who has 2:08 marathoners running 50-60mpw, than either its a myth, or these take the easy way out--using Epo or other performance Enhancing drugs. Says Arthur Lydiard, "Mileage isn't fashionable anymore."

Many experts in one field, such as medicine, often think that because they are smart that they know everything about everything. That happens often on thsi board, and it has happened to your doctor. Don't believe him. Believe a successful coach.

Tell the doctor that the super high mileage is used as a sort of mild breeze to clear your body of it's pollution so it will operate more efficiently. For many elites/sub-elites, especially those living in the big city, 60 - 80 miles is a homeostatic point, where they don't become any more or less polluted/efficient. If the 60 - 80 are intense, a bit like a hurricane moving through the body, the elite/sub-elite will become more efficient at transmitting energy, but eventually the hurricane will take it's toll and lead to injury. The mild breeze of high mileage is much safer and in the long run leads to better results because there will be less time lost to injury.

Alright, here are the goods. Below are several notable excerpts from the article that the first link below will connect you too. It's a very interesting article.

Also, note that most of what they are doing here is mostly "aerobic" intensity (i.e. below 100% VO2max) as opposed to lactate-flooded, puking-at-the-side-of-the-track "anaerobic" intensity. Also, the 5k-10 mile paces used are best for opptimizing VO2max and LT. The second link will connect you to a similar article.

"Eleven top-level black athletes, including former world half-marathon record-holder Matthews Temane, Berlin Marathon winner Xolile Yawa, 2:08-marathoner Zithuele Sinqe, and New York Marathon champion William Mtolo"

"Overall, the blacks' running programmes revolved around lots of fartlek running, ample interval workouts on the track, high-quality lOK races, and a firm commitment to run no slower than 3:45 per km during their longer workouts on the roads and trails in the high-veld near Johannesburg." (about 5900ft elevation, compare to many Kenyans going ~4:00km on easy days @ 7-8,000ft)

"there's no mystery, according to Noakes. 'I tell my runners to try to do as much as they can on as little training as possible,' says the South African scientist. 'Obviously this means focusing on intense training, as the black runners in our study did, rather than on grandiose mileage levels."

Alright, that was stupid of me. Here is the first link.

And here is the second link.

I'd be intersted to the length of the careers for these athletes on this program.

The Lore of Running has some pages advocating lower mileage.

Given as example is Fordyce an ultramarathoner and winner

of several Comrades.

But isn't it pretty obvious that most people succeed with higher base mileage. And this lower mileage 50-60mpw...I really can't see that as base miles for a 2:08 marathoner.

Where's the logic in that training?

What sense does it make to have a program where "the race distance is up to 50% of the ahtletes weekly volume?"

[quote]Freddie wrote:

But isn't it pretty obvious that most people succeed with higher base mileage.

Yes, that's probably true. In fact, its not clear what stage of preparation these runners are in, so that can be deceiving. My point is that while volume is important to being able to handle high-intensity, high intensity separates the best from everybody else. Sometimes it seems that intensity gets heedlessly short-changed for volume. As I said earlier, even the Run With the Best authors recommend 25%+ of all volume for the 20 weeks leading up to the competitive period be at or above lactate threshold.

"Run With the Best", 2nd Edition, Tony Benson & Irv Ray

Chapter 30 "Training Guidlines", page 147:

"NOTE: Remember, do not exceed 25-30% of weekly volume with hard training."

25-30% is the ceiling, not the minimum.