RW: "Studies show that over 60 miles/week does not improve lung and heart function"

RUNNERS WORLD IS GOOD ONLY FOR THE PICTURES!!! Which also they are so biased on the cover, only putting beauty queens on them...or baywatch guys!! SELL OUT THEY ARE!!! Also they listed 'dont try this at home' talking about KK's long run, HEY he has the WR...they must think only people in running for recreation read there magazine...what a joke!

Nick, you're wrong the magazine is only good for the lining in a bird cage. the magazine totally focuses on the non-elite runner and does not want anyone that can't run "fast" to feel bad. it is so watered down that i am wasting too much time typing this right now.

Hey new idea, everyone should stop getting runners world, I am sure they would change their magazine if half the people that visit this website would d/c purchasing it. Seriously,I love it that people run just for health reasons, it's great, but runners world needs to cater to everyone and eyestone's articles are a bit not advanced enough. Runners world used to be decent but they have changed and shortened pictures from races, just not good! RUNNING TIMES IS GOOD!! They at least have new state of the art knowledge! I learn more about exercise physiology throuhg muscle and fitness!! much better than RUnners world!!!

Nick is sure Runner's World would change if half the people on these message boards stopped subscribing. Yeah, sure...if their circulation dropped by 125, they'd change their editorial policy. Right

I never read this training packet, but before everyone bashes RW more, I think their statement might be technically true, although very misleading. Hear me out..

Suppose you have a nice, balanced training regimin of 60 mpw. Now if you wanted to increase your mileage, what would you do? I, for one, would extend my long runs, extend my training runs, or go out for a morning 5 miles before my afternoon workout. In other words, steady-state "training pace" runs.

But, long, slow distance does not improve the "central" cardiovascular system, aka heart and lungs. All else being equal, a 60 mpw runner and one who does an extra 40 mpw of steady state runs will each be able to get just as much oxygen to the working muscles.

However, what long steady distance does is improve the "peripheral" CV system. Specifically, it proliferates the mitochondria within the muscle cells, allowing you to extract oxygen from the blood more efficiently. This is why the 100 mpw runner is better than the 60 mpw runner. Heart and lungs are not the be all and end all of competitive fitness.

I haven't read the article as well but I don't think they are saying "Studies show that over 60 miles/week does not improve running times in the 5000m" It could be scientifically true about not improving lung and heart function.

Is there a long term "health" benefit or deteriment of running 100+ vs 60mpw? Note the difference: health vs racing benefit.

The original guy's point seemed to be that obviously there are huge benefits over 60 per week, and RW has no business telling people to cross-train for the sake of riding abike or whatever sick purpose they have.

But see, that's what everyone here needs to accept and move on with. The print version of the magazine is indeed in the business of telling people to cross train and such. To their credit, the online version does a good job with elite coverage. It's been this way (the print version) for a good 10 years now. They aren't going to change. Spend as much time praising R.Times and just ignore RW altogether.

MVrunner, good point about the misleading nature of the statement. However, you need to remember that the average Gallowalker doesn't give a rat's ass about the peripheral CV system nor proliferating his/her mitochondria. Nor will he/she ever do over 60 miles a week anyway, that's why this statement is pointless. They might have as well said "studies have shown that running on the Moon is not conducive to health due to low gravity."

...is that guys like burfoot, higdon, and galloway used to be decent runners...

Don't get me started on Galloway :-)

MVrunner, you are correct when stating that the major benefits to high mileage are peripheral.

However, unlike the RW pamphlet states, studies have NOT shown that running over 60 mpw produces no additional lung and heart benefits.

Costill did a study with TWO runners and concluded that VO2max does not increase beyond 70 mpw. The two subjects actually went up to about 200mpw, but was for such a short time that 1) There was no chance to observe potential longterm benefits of higher mileage on VO2max and 2) Overtraining was pretty much certain and could have inhibited the adaptive response. Anyone with a decent understanding of statistics and basic science should immediately realize that there is no reliability if you have a study with TWO subjects. Its an interesting but weak piece of research.

As far as I know, that is the only study that has looked at the effect of high mileage on VO2max. No one has ever gotten a group of people to run high mileage for 2-3 years and observed longterm adaptations--in a formal study.

VO2max aside, the peripheral benefits are huge.

I'm a health and sports science/pre-med. student, and from what I've learned there are soooooo many factors that come into play (besides your heart and lungs) when you train for endurance races. The "general population", what Runner's World is mostly for, thinks it's all about your lungs and heart, but that's not true. Kinda like MVRunner mentioned, You have to consider other factors, such as running economy (due to biomechanics and bioenergetics--the different energy systems we use at the varying intensities and duration), blood lactate threshold, percentage of the various muscle fiber types a person has (and HOW they train to utilize those different types), environmental factors, hydration, and the ability of the muscles and liver carbohydrate stores to supply glucose (related to bioenergetics). These are just a few important factors that come into play with the more endurance training you do.

I haven't read whatever Runner's World put out regarding this, but the MOST RELIABLE resources to check are scientific journals where the research has been presented. I'd be curious to know which journal Runner's World got their info out of. You have to look at research design (how the subjects were selected--hopefully randomly, the use of control and comparison group, statistical evaluation), the sample size, variables about the subjects such as their age/weight/fitness level, the duration of the study, and how they came to their conclusion. One study may contradict another study, so you usually have to look at several studies to decide which source is more reliable.

Basically, people should not take whatever Runner's World prints to heart and do the research on their own to find the truth.

:) jag

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/journals/index.htm?iam=dpile&terms=exercise+sports+science

From Joe Henderson's book published by T&FN 1970.

Ambrose Joel Burfoot. 6'0'', 140 lbs. Born Aug. 19, 1946. Began racing at age 17. "Serious competition will probably cease for me before jogging does. I believe I will continue running or a very long time." Self coached influenced by John Kelly.

Best Times: 440 yds-57.9; 880yds.-202.5; mile-4:19; 2mile-8:45.6; 3miles-13:44.8; 6miles-29:26; Marathon-2:14:28.8 Favorite race, marathon.

Training: (1968 season) twice a day (6:30 a.m., 3p.m.) 7 days a week 12 months a year. About 115 miles per week. longest ever training run: 38 miles.

Description: "Under ideal conditions of good health, sufficient time (both for necessary training and the even more necessary relaxation) and proper motivation, I would train as follows:

Mon.-Sat. 10miles a.m. 15miles p.m.; Sun. 25 miles.

I accomplished this schedule during the first two weks of February 1968. All running was at approximately 7:00 pace. Without any speedwork at all, I then went onto the track (indoors) and ran 8:45, which is still far and away my most startling running performance. I ran with an ease which absolutely amazed me. I then began thinking about more track meetsand adding a little speed, and got slower every week. By mid March I was a consistent 9:02 2 miler.

I spent the fall of 68 training 5 or 6 times per week. My weekday runs were 15 milers, while on the weekend I got out for longer runs including a 38 and a 36. I averaged 85 over this period and only topped 100 once. Yet, I felt very good and began doing "Oslerian pickups" (gradual accelerations). On my 15 I would run easily for 2 miles, do 7x800m pickups in the next 10-11 miles, and then do hard, short pickups for the last two miles. (This is the training that led to his 2:14 race in Japan which was within 1 sec. of the then AR. held by B. Edelen.

Well, it looks like Runners World was wrong again.

very astute observation

I don’t know why you’re flabbergasted about this, but that is an entirely true fact. Around 1 hour a day is all you need to max out your heart and lungs. Fortunately, heart and lung function aren’t the sole factors in performance. There’s also running economy (both efficiency of stride and the ability of your muscles to use blood oxygen) and raw speed. Running economy can forever be improved by more running, and running lots of mileage can help the leg muscles adapt to get stronger, which also improves speed.