Ryan Hall tells it like it is

something about running brings out those personalities that would rather work hard for the sake of working hard than to work to get better

You think Rupp was running less than 80mi/week last year?

I think a lot of this has to do with the back lash from the early 90s. You CANNOT get by with 40 miles a week and constant intervals. But it is not required to run 160 miles a week either. 90-120 miles a week, structured intelligently makes the most sense.

BUT I don't think Ryan is going to be running 80 miles a week, I think in some ways you have taken his quote out of context. This makes it sound like he is going to run four days a week, doing only workouts. I think the important thing to remmeber is to run as many miles as possible while recovering - run you hard days hard, easy days easy, but keep the volume at a reasonable level.

Aren't selective quotes great? You left out the next bit:
"Don’t get me wrong. I think the principle behind mileage is important: we should run a lot."

So, Ryan's point seems to be: Run a lot. Get in the hard workouts. Make sure you recover between them. Don't add in miles that interfere with recovery just to have miles (but still run a lot). Who'd disagree?

^^^This. Plus I think Hall is saying it's not really necessary to obsessively keep track of every mile you run so you can make your weekly quota. Just run a lot, and recover adequately between hard workouts so you can get the most of them.

I think the most important part of training is consistency. If one is prone to injury running 100mpw, 80mpw, even if it won't bring the athlete to their full potential, is superior if it allows them to train without interruptions due to injury. Also, a lot of runners walk a fine line doing >100mpw. Every little thing matters when you're doing 14+ miles per day. There's a lot less room for mistakes when training at a high volume.

The 1500m, 3000m, and 5000m times you posted are all by Lagat, who I don't think should be used as a model for the general runner. Lagat is a freak of nature. Using an 800m runner's mileage as a guide for distance runners probably doesn't make a ton of sense either, as preparation for 800m is much much different than that for 5000m and up.

Overall, mileage, just like training in general, should be personalized to the athlete to optimize performance both for short term and long term success. I can guarentee three years of consistent training at 70mpw is going to be superior to sporadic bouts of training at 100mpw with long injury layoffs between. Perhaps athlets should look more into cross training and supplement their 80mpw with other cardio and strength workouts.

---

dsrunner wrote:

"Now, when I look at a week I don’t see the necessity for mileage, I see the necessity for hard, quality workouts followed by adequate recovery..." --Ryan Hall

Maybe now we can stop the mileage madness?

Our best marathoner cuts back mileage to revive his career.

US bests at < 80 miles/week
* = US record (= current record)

800m Gray 1:42.6*
1000m Wholhuter 2:13.9*
1500m Lagat 3:29.3*
Mile Webb 3:46.9*
2000m Spivey 4:52.4*
3000m Lagat 7:30*
Steeple Marsh 8:09.1 (8:08.8)
5000m Lagat 12:54*
10000m Rupp 27:10.7 (26:59.6)

---

Haile runs a lot of miles and is faster than nearly all of the US runners at 1500

This kind of talk has to be put into the proper perspective and looked at from the athlete's whole history.

Take a guy like Ryan Hall. We know he has run plenty of higher mileage. We also know he has had some good speed. He has a very good background in both. So when he gets more recovery from his workouts, he has the aerobic base to back it up, is rested, and can probably go out and run some amazing times while feeling fresh. Will he be able to keep doing that for years while neglecting the mileage? No. But he can probably get away with it in some cycles and do quite well. It's very easy to find examples of people who do a lot of mileage, back off, and do well for a time.

So I give another example working from the opposite end of the spectrum. Ed Whitlock used to be really good at the mile. He's known in later life for doing really well off just hours of aerobic running. Does aerobic running help his performance? Yes, definitely. But you can't ignore the fact that he used to be really good at the mile. Athletes duplicating his high duration running won't see the same success because they don't have the speed background he does.

There's a right time and a wrong time to add each element. You need some history of it all to do well.

I think the BIGGEST thing, and something I wished someone taught me at a younger age, was the concept of self control in recovery. Just because you CAN run every day at 6 min pace, doesn't mean you should. This is true even if you are getting your workouts done. At some point you will pay the piper, and that might just be on race day...

So what? is Hall just doing 100M sprints?

I get it that quality trumps mileage. But I think when he says training "hard" that basically equates to running a large volume of miles.

First of all, yes, an 800-3k guy can easily get by on 80 miles week. I think few will argue with you. So your examples of Gray, Wholhuter, Lagat, Webb, Spivey and Marsh are irrelevant because most would say you don't need more then that for those events. 80 a week is a lot of running, especially when you're running fast intense workouts.

So now we get to 3k, 5k and 10k. Well, Lagat's best times at 3k and 5k have come when he has raised his mileage, he is a genetic freak, and has years of injury free consistent training. I think its hard to compare his training with anyone else. Not a fair comparison.

Marsh ran 80... in 6 days (I believe) and ran an event where success is largely determined by how good a hurdler you are. On the flat surfaces, Marsh wasn't other worldly, meaning he wasn't a beast because of his speed and strength, but because of his technique, toughness, and excellence at a particular skill event.

Rupp, you missed the boat. Rupp AVERAGED 80 a week for a year. That means he had periods of 100+ in addition to periods of 50-60. I posted an example of a year's worth of Bob Kennedy's training and he was as high as 140 and into the 120s for a few months (along with Daniel Komen, Moses Kiptanui and others)... but guess what his yearly average was? Pretty close to 80. That's because when he raced over the summer, he dropped down to 40s and 50s. That kills your average.

Solinsky, Teg and Ritz... all high mileage. So the 4 of our 5 American born sub 13:00 guys... all run 100+ mile weeks. Our best American born 10k guys... all run over 100 mile weeks at their peak. Nearly every African distance runner (5k and up) who is worth their salt... 100+ mile weeks.

And as for Ryan Hall? He has YEARS of high mileage under his belt. Hall's first run was a 10 miler or something ridiculous and has been running well over 100 mile weeks for a long time. He has an insane liftetime base and THAT is why he can run 80-100 now (mind you in 6 days) and thrive.

If you think that 80 mpw is enough for most people to reach their potential at 5000m and higher, you are not involved in the sport at a high level.

Hey if 80 mpw is all it takes, why isn't every D1 runner world class?

/dumb

---

47 wrote:

Hey if 80 mpw is all it takes, why isn't every D1 runner world class?

/dumb

---

---

comprehend wrote:

Where did he say the 80 mpw is all it takes?


/stupid

---

---

47 wrote:

Hey if 80 mpw is all it takes, why isn't every D1 runner world class?

/dumb

---

Then why am I doing this dumb sport if I work as hard as I can and I'm still not the best. My daddy always told me I could be if I worked hard.

---

going going gone wrote:

something about running brings out those personalities that would rather work hard for the sake of working hard than to work to get better

---