Mileage is Overrated - True or False

False

Mileage is overrated on LetsRun.

In the general running community, it is underrated... evidenced by all the "run less, run faster" articles in RunnersWorld.

Dear.... L. Fleshman SHUT THE F*** UP

Consistency counts more than just higher mileage. Consistent high mileage is best of both worlds. Notice Fleshman hasn't PR'd since 2008. I wouldn't put too much stock in her advice.

If you want advice from someone - it should be Flanagan. She's set up for a big year. Thanks to high mileage.

Flanagan is doing a lot more than just high mileage. The fact that you attributed it to just high mileage proves my point that it is overrated on LetsRun.

End the shame wrote:

Flanagan is doing a lot more than just high mileage. The fact that you attributed it to just high mileage proves my point that it is overrated on LetsRun.

and she was doing a lot more than just low mileage under cook... what's your point?

I'd think it is a pretty rare situation where more miles wouldn't produce better results.

Well, that explains why Fleshman holds no records and hasn't accomplished anything spectacular in the past few years...

HEHEHE wrote:

Well, that explains why Fleshman holds no records and hasn't accomplished anything spectacular in the past few years...

15:28.70 to win the US 5000 meters title in 2010. Yes, it's way off her PR, but winning is winning. :)

(I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the "overrated" comment.)

If an athlete is successful, it is due to high mileage. If they are not, it is because of low mileage. It does not matter what they say, this is absolutely the case.

In general, mileage is underrated. I probably overrate it. This website, perhaps, might overrate it a bit. But, it's the closest thing to a "sure thing" that you can find in running.

For the mile and below, mileage is overrated.

Also "overrated" in terms of the value placed by hobby jogger 5 hour+ marathoners who don't do 5k's because it's "too short".

this does prove that running high mileage does not make you hotter.

fleshman > flanagan imo. both body and face. Anyone else agrees?

classof89 wrote:

Also "overrated" in terms of the value placed by hobby jogger 5 hour+ marathoners who don't do 5k's because it's "too short".

I think that's a different meaning of the word. I think the OP meant is the relative importance of training mileage overrated or underrated?

But it does annoy me when people scoff at shorter distance races.

The second half of what Lauren says is true. There are always more ways to improve than just one way. One of the more common ways happens to be by running more mileage. I'm sure telling her to run more mileage probably isn't the best advice ever, because she already runs a lot. But to many people who aren't professional runners it's probably true that more mileage would help.

End the shame wrote:

Mileage is overrated on LetsRun.

In the general running community, it is underrated... evidenced by all the "run less, run faster" articles in RunnersWorld.

This.

Mileage is certainly overrated.

Poll 100 runners to list their weekly mileage and their 5K PR.

You will not find a consistant correlation between the two.

It will trend towards faster times at higher mileage and you won't find fast times under 20 mpw but it will be a bumpy graph.

And there are diminishing returns - at a certain point you will not get faster with more miles.

The correlation will depend on the distance raced. With the 5k you will get one correlation but with say the marathon you will get a much stronger correlation. Also people run as many miles as they need to be successful. A less purely talented runner many run many more miles then his more talented peer and in the end may have the same 5k time. That is why the graph will be "bumpy".

toro wrote:

Mileage is certainly overrated.

Poll 100 runners to list their weekly mileage and their 5K PR.

You will not find a consistant correlation between the two.

It will trend towards faster times at higher mileage and you won't find fast times under 20 mpw but it will be a bumpy graph.

And there are diminishing returns - at a certain point you will not get faster with more miles.

Pretty much true but it is not just talent making that lower mileage runner faster but it is more specified training for the race.

You can take two runners of equal talent and design training that has one running lower mileage yet faster 5K times.

Take two runners of equal talent (presume it is possible to know their talent)

One guy runs 80 mpw all easy except one up tempo day. Every week the same.

The other runs 65 mpw with three fast sessions a week that change and progress through the year. Some tempo, some track, some hills.

I assert that the lower mileage runner will faster at the end of the year. Now maybe he would run faster at 80 mpw with that plan but at some point additional miles will not help.

Also I do not think people run as many miles as they need to be successful.

I don't think Lagat caps his mileage below others because he is happy with his success. I think he trains to run as fast as he can and has found a mileage level that works for him.

I am just saying you can't measure someone's training effort by looking at their mileage total because mileage is overrated.