High Mileage

Probably after some evidence

Roger Bannister

Arthur Lydiard wrote:

Roger Bannister

lol

you made a funny!

Just because you're sick of hearing something doesn't make it untrue. Maybe you should just stop listening. Or maybe you've already done that.

I agree. I'm gonna start running a solid 2 mpw at 100m pace. Quantity over all yo.

Arthur Lydiard wrote:

When are these coaches going to understand that mileage is all about quality not quantity...im getting sick of hearing all about how important high mileage is! It produces LONG slow distance runner!

Are you saying that high mileage actually make you grow taller?

Coaches understand what they see actually works. Hence the current emphasis on quantity, because it is time proven. An over-emphasis on quality is the blame of performance reduction in the '90s. Quality produced stale distance runners.Arthur Lydiard used both quantity and quality, at different periods of the season, targeting high peaks for important races.Quantity is important. Without it, you won't reach your potential. How high is high varies with the individual.Quality is important. Without it, you won't reach your potential. Quality is race specific.I'm sick of hearing that running success can be reduced to one single thing.

Arthur Lydiard wrote:

When are these coaches going to understand that mileage is all about quality not quantity...im getting sick of hearing all about how important high mileage is! It produces long slow distance runner!

Here are the American track records run by athletes training 80 or less miles/week, approximate weekly mileage listed in parentheses:

800 1:42.6 (60)

1000 2:13.9 (50)

2000 4:52.4 (60)

1500 3:29.3 (60)

3000 7:29 (60)

St 8:09.1 (30)

5000 12:54.1 (75)

10000 27:10.7 (80)

Now, as an exercise, why not complete the same list for those

Americans who trained >80 miles/week.

I've always understood that quality makes you faster, and quantity lets you do more volume at a quality pace.

Arthur Lydiard wrote:

Roger Bannister

Sure, train like Bannister and run a 3:58. Train like Snell and run a 4:04 off base, then a 3:54 with icing. Train like El Guerrouj and run 3:43.

Ho Hum wrote:

I agree. I'm gonna start running a solid 2 mpw at 100m pace. Quantity over all yo.

try this, you'll be surprised with the results, do them in 100 and 200 intervals.

Let me try and guess your point:- The OP is whining about nothing -- American coaches already fully understand the role of quantity and quality?- Americans are slow because they don't run as much mileage as Africans?- Higher mileage is important for longer distances -- The 5K and 10K mileage is higher than all the others. Bernard Lagat only ran 60 for the 1500m, while he ran 75 for the 5000m.More questions:- How many of those miles were "quality"?- How has that changed from previous seasons? What is the trend?- What mileage did they do in their general training?- What kind of mileage have they done in the past?I said the meaning of "high" is specific to the individual, and the event. For me, I consider 80 miles a week high. For marathon elites, it's considered low.

dsrunner has the day off wrote:

Here are the American track records run by athletes training 80 or less miles/week, approximate weekly mileage listed in parentheses:

800 1:42.6 (60)

1000 2:13.9 (50)

2000 4:52.4 (60)

1500 3:29.3 (60)

3000 7:29 (60)

St 8:09.1 (30)

5000 12:54.1 (75)

10000 27:10.7 (80)

Now, as an exercise, why not complete the same list for those

Americans who trained >80 miles/week.

themanontherun wrote:

I've always understood that quality makes you faster, and quantity lets you do more volume at a quality pace.

This.

J.O. wrote:

themanontherun wrote:

I've always understood that quality makes you faster, and quantity lets you do more volume at a quality pace.

This.

Not this

Then you don't understand training.

Aghast wrote:

J.O. wrote:

This.

Not this

It may not be the whole truth but is sure is a big part of it. So... yes this.

I just read your post on another thread. My question to you is, how much slow running are you going to add, just so your weekly mileage looks impressive to other runner geeks?

The really good runners do an awful lot of quality running.

J.O. wrote:

I just read your post on another thread. My question to you is, how much slow running are you going to add, just so your weekly mileage looks impressive to other runner geeks?

The really good runners do an awful lot of quality running.

You don't need to add "slow" running. You need to add easy running. The really good runners do an awful lot of quality running because it's still a relatively small(ish) portion of their overall mileage.