Why is LetsRun still Hyping Megamiles?

Are you implying there is no correlation between high mileage and race times?

Because I think if you took a large sample size of runners the data output would make you look like an idiot.

I think that if some people on here are into hyping mega mileage it is because they remember the bad old days of the 90s and are overcompensating in training philosophy.

You've got to remember how bad the 90s were. Over like 30-50 was considered huge mileage. I remember when I was in high school in the late 90s I was considered to be a total mileage hound for hitting like 40-50 a week and putting in a couple of 70s over the summers. You would constantly hear things like: don't run so much, you'll get burned out/injured, you won't be able to walk when you're 40, try some nice plyometrics instead! And of course this sort of attitude led to things like a year where the fastest US marathon was 2:14, where a 15:30 5k gave one a legitimate shot at making footlocker, and where 13:35 in the 5k was national class.

Even though going out and jogging 150 miles a week is not a great way to train either, you have to remember where some people are coming from (and that jogging mega miles, even if it is not the BEST training philosophy, is certainly better than the worthless crap that passed for training advice back in the dark ages of the 90s). Also, I don't think most of the people here would advocate getting in mileage just for the sake of mileage, but would rather advocate increasing mileage as the natural part of one's training and not at the expense of at least some quality work.

Also remember that to many people who went through the 90s, especially if they were young and impressionable, 80-100 would seem like mega miles, so don't overestimate what someone might mean by "high mileage."

As you could imagine, mileage has been, is, and always will be king.

At the high school level, it's most often the extreme talents who succeed. German, Alan, and Robbie didn't run for national-caliber programs with renowned coaches. If you want to talk about sustained successful coaching, take a look at recent nationals performance, and come back and say that 40mpw is enough to be great. It's not.

Lagat runs high mileage, and also trains at an incredible speed. Remember until this year, he was focused on being an all-time great at 1500. Quite a bit different from the 5k.

Solinsky runs high mileage, significantly higher than Lagat. He's well over 100 miles a week on average if you measure miles by distance. He doesn't get less time on his feet if he runs faster, because he's running more for time than distance.

Ritz "broke through" largely because of his enormous base. Had he not spent those years logging the miles, I don't believe we would've seen such great performances. Money in the bank that AlSal helped him withdraw, something Brad couldn't.

Hall's problem isn't running too much mileage, it's not running anything fast. So yes, cutting back for a bit on his mileage to focus on some other aspects of what make up a world class marathoner should serve him well. He's having to overcompensate now because he lacked any sort of this work in the past.

The OP of this thread must be a 16-18 min 5km guy.

"Neither Lagat, Rupp, Wheating, or Manzano is running astoundingly high mileage. The reality of US distance running is that you don't make a US team on the track without <50 sec 400m speed.

Solinsky is down under 100/wk average and training faster to spend *less* time on his feet. We know that this is the absolute *most* Solinsky needs to break 13' and 27'

Andrew Wheatings Bio:

During his first season of track in his senior year, he burst onto the track scene, ranking fourth nationally with a time of 3:54.28 in the 1500 meters. He led the nation with a 14:55.28 indoor 5000 meter time.

During his first track season he ran 14:55...I've been training for almost 10 years (age 11-19) and I'm still only a 15:30 guy on the track. So, my ten years of training vs his 1-2 years of training...Obviously if I plan my running based on his, I wouldn't get the same results. Galen Rupp ran 13:36 in high school...There are millions of people in the world that do 50-80 miles a week for 3,5,even 10 years, yet you don't hear about them. Maybe they run 14:07, but they never come within reach of Rupps HIGH SCHOOL PR.

dsrunner wrote:

Pace, consistency, basic speed, nutrition, periodization, specificity of work, and talent also factor into performance capability.

yeah, all this plus high mileage. duh.

I've improved a lot each time I've raised my mileage, so I am not going to argue that it does not help a lot or that most people would not improve significantly by doing hundred mile weeks. But high intensity training with fifty to sixty mile weeks has been the formula for many of our best middle distance runners, from Webb to Wheating, Lagat, Manzano, Symmonds, etc. So, while Solinsky, Teg, and Ritz, among others have done very well on 90 to 120 mpw, the American record holders in the 1500m, 3000m, 5000m, a number of the top ten guys in the fifteen, and most of the best guys in the 800m, have done so on the 'low' mileage program. So, clearly there was something else going on during the low point of American distance running. It wasn't just a question of the mileage being too low.

jjjjjjjjjj wrote:

I've improved a lot each time I've raised my mileage, so I am not going to argue that it does not help a lot or that most people would not improve significantly by doing hundred mile weeks. But high intensity training with fifty to sixty mile weeks has been the formula for many of our best middle distance runners, from Webb to Wheating, Lagat, Manzano, Symmonds, etc. So, while Solinsky, Teg, and Ritz, among others have done very well on 90 to 120 mpw, the American record holders in the 1500m, 3000m, 5000m, a number of the top ten guys in the fifteen, and most of the best guys in the 800m, have done so on the 'low' mileage program. So, clearly there was something else going on during the low point of American distance running. It wasn't just a question of the mileage being too low.

Webb ran 3:53 in high school. Obviously this WASN'T because of his low mileage. His body was, from birth, born just a bit different. Maybe a higher VO2, maybe his heart is a tiny bit bigger, maybe he has more xx cells or w/e. Either way his mileage had little to do with how well he performed (at least in HIGH SCHOOL). All these guys that you named ran in the 8:40's - they aren't your normal run of the mill athletes, these guys could do CrossFitting and still run sub-9.

Rupp recently said in an interview that he isn't doing enough miles, only 80 a week, to run with the big boys...All the top Africans are running well over a 100 mpw

(To OP)

Would you model your training after a 13:07 guy (Rupp - 80 mpw), a 12:55 guy (Chris Solinsky - 100-110 mpw), or a 12:39 guy (Haile G - 120+ mpw, and his miles were at altitude)

http://www.talk.dyestat.com/showthread.php?t=33299

Seems pretty clear to me, the more miles the better the runner, unless you disagree? Another example is Gerry Lindgren, the one guy that wasn't born a great runner. In fact I believe he had a tough time breaking 80 seconds for the quarter before he started doing Mega mileage. How does a slow high school runner go from a 6 minute miler to a 4:03/13:42 miler/5km guy? A great aerobic base. How does one achieve a great aerobic base? Lots of miles. simple as that. There are many ways to the top, but generally the more miles you can hit each week without injuring yourself the better.

I think most of us can agree that high mileage just for the number is count productive. Sacrificing the quality is a great way to be on track for a 100 miler and not much else.

There's a big ol' metaphorical ocean between the 1500 and 5000 that's being over looked on this thread.

60-80mpw w/ high quality seems to be a trend for the best 800/1500 runners, while 100+ suits most of the 5k/10k guys well. A lot of the megamiles talk around here is in relation to the marathon, anyhow. There's no argument to be held. The OP is only failing to see the proper categories.

I highly doubt you'll find many sub 13/27 guys that don't put in at least a couple of months over 100mpw each year.

Might have something to do with the fact that the WR holder in the Marathon runs 160 miles a week, and the WR holder in the 10000m runs over 100 a week.

Secondly, Ritz's breakout performances came right after the switch in coaches. He even admitted that his former high volume helped him set the AR at 5000m. Since being immersed in Alberto's training, he's only been injured.

Rupp just said that he wants to get up to 100 miles a week, for he talked about how all the ELITES are doing over 100 miles a week and he said he is lacking strength.

Finally, Solinksy may say he only does 80 miles a week, but we all know he is using Badger miles (7 minute miles), and also he has said that he does his EASY runs at 5:30 pace, so he has definitely hit 100 milers this past year.

it's very simple. 95% of all good long distance runners run 100miles/week or more for a large part of the year (base).

An outlier is just an...hmm outlier.

dsrunner wrote:

OK, the Lydiard stuff here is getting a little old. I don't mind a few biases now and then but this has gotten to be ridiculous.

. . .

While I don't have time today to explain why . . . .

Oh, darn. I'm stuck with my biases about the benefits of high mileage for at least another day.

The OP clearly has no intention of reading about Lydiard training, or understanding its applications. The key to Lydiards training is phases, read Liquori's book its incredibly easy to see what he's doing and its Lydiard, very Lydiard.

Right now Solinsky is doing less than 100 mpw. True. Has he all year long? No, dont be an idiot. So, why would he suddenly drop his mileage to under those big scary 'supermileage' numbers? No idea, he must get lazy in the summer. I hear he's been hanging out in Europe and can barely find time to train incredibly intensely.

And you're right Lydiard's method doesnt produce the sort of finishing kick that can win races. I mean Peter Snell ran 1:44, and thats only 52 seconds a lap! Thats some piss poor kick he had off all that massive aerobic base he built up over years. Silly New Zealanders!

All that time spent running marathon training REALLY held back Ritzenhein too! I mean look at the complete lack of foot speed he had going into that 5k. They went out in a 60 second first lap and he was in dead last! Hell even I can run a 400 in 60, and I don't have a pair of his fancy kicks.

Its almost like all these athletes have a history training over many years and slowly but surely building large aerobic bases. But that can't be, thats some sort of Lydiard proposed nonsense. I agree when you coach 3 athletes and they each end up medaling in their first olympics its beginners luck, good thing you brought all this to our attention.

The OP got owned

High Mileage works every time it is tried. If you read Lydiard. The very high miles are during the base. These are not long slow distance. This is 100 miles a week near the top of the aerobic threshold. You get more than 100 miles with warm-up,cooldown and the secondary daily runs of about 30 minutes each. He advocates cutting the mileage slightly during the speedwork phase. I have tried his methods and they work. I am not world class but when I ran the huge base for many months and then applied his peaking techniques, I beat everyone in my area age group (except one former Olympian) including people who were "faster" and "more talented" than I was. The top Africans are running huge miles. Geb does. Paula Radcliffe did. There are no shortcuts. Try it before you knock it!

5/10 for a semi decent trolling effort - a little obvious I thought, but some appeared to think you were serious.