I haven't been seriously hurt in about two years and I run most of the time over 100 miles a week, and have been PR'ing like crazy and having a lot of fun doing so. Workouts and races have come easier to me.
On the other hand, before that, when I was at lower mileage i was constantly tired, hurt, and having terrible races...Workouts always took me a few days to recover, and nothing ever seemed to click consistently.
What do you all think?
Well for me, I noticed as my mileage went up there that I took more easy runs. Easy runs and two-a-days have been very valuable to staying injury free. Whereas when I was doing low mileage I didn't take my easy runs seriously because I thought I was already at a low average.
I did my Master's thesis on enhancing bone recovery with whole body vibration training-- basically a low-magnitude, high frequency stimulus. You could equate this to ~walking, standing, low-intensity running. Low intensity activity is both safer and more anabolic to both soft and hard tissue. It's also more likely to be sustained long term and consistently-- it's what maintains bone/muscle mass. When done frequently (research supports 4-6 hours between bouts) it's even more anabolic. The reason why is because of increased blood flow, which also brings growth factors and nutrients-- the body likes to move, and move frequently.
So whenever something starts to bother you, sometimes the answer isn't less, but rather more... and more frequently... and lower intensity. You don't have to run-- it could be walking or other cross training. Weight bearing activity is more anabolic. A lot of people forget about walking-- it's the next closest thing to running.
There may be something to what you say, where the state of homeostasis when under high mileage is a continual state of inflammation and repair. Maybe the body gets serious and really uses food consumed quite efficiently.
But look at cases like Ian Edwards where things can go wrong under high mileage.
Thanks for chiming in with a well-informed position; I didn't see you reply before I posted. Cheers.
So what you're saying is higher mileage slows you down so you are healthier more frequently?
If that is what you are saying, speed or jus "faster" training can be dangerous?..And is that possibly how a lot of injuries begin?
Also, the more you are active (low intensity?), the odds of injuries decrease (?), Because that makes your bones stronger?
So the "extra" mileage (mainly slower miles) builds stronger bones?
Sooo more doubles or recovery runs after workouts are good for you? Sorry for all the questions
jaguar1 wrote:
I did my Master's thesis on enhancing bone recovery with whole body vibration training-- basically a low-magnitude, high frequency stimulus. You could equate this to ~walking, standing, low-intensity running. Low intensity activity is both safer and more anabolic to both soft and hard tissue. It's also more likely to be sustained long term and consistently-- it's what maintains bone/muscle mass. When done frequently (research supports 4-6 hours between bouts) it's even more anabolic. The reason why is because of increased blood flow, which also brings growth factors and nutrients-- the body likes to move, and move frequently.
So whenever something starts to bother you, sometimes the answer isn't less, but rather more... and more frequently... and lower intensity. You don't have to run-- it could be walking or other cross training. Weight bearing activity is more anabolic. A lot of people forget about walking-- it's the next closest thing to running.
That's wild. I run every day (singles) , but since I started taking my daughter for walks in the stroller for about an hour a day ( sort of a double, I guess), I've been PR'ing all the season. I wondered if the walks had anything to do with it, but thought it was silly. Maybe not.
jaguar1 wrote:
I did my Master's thesis on enhancing bone recovery with whole body vibration training-- basically a low-magnitude, high frequency stimulus. You could equate this to ~walking, standing, low-intensity running. Low intensity activity is both safer and more anabolic to both soft and hard tissue.
Yeah, those walkers man, they are soooo ripped. They put those guys who do that high intensity weights at the gym have it all wrong. They could be so much bigger with walking!
Hmmm.... I'm usually injured at like 40-50 miles a week so should I hop up to 80-90?
LowMileage/AlwaysInjured wrote:
Hmmm.... I'm usually injured at like 40-50 miles a week so should I hop up to 80-90?
It's not that simple. It depends on pace.
What kinds of injuries have you been getting? And how fast is your 30-40 mpw?
I'd bet that the lower mileage/high intensity injuries are more muscle related, while high mileage/low intensity injuries are bone related.
This is retarded. Of course you can do more easy mileage than hard mileage without injury. That doesn't mean you should. And here is a concept, it has nothing to do with mileage at all, just how you let your body recover.
Well it doesnt seem as though you can do as many easy runs on lower miles then you can on higher miles. Also, at lower miles I think it is harder to see the benefits of recovery days.
At lower mileage "recovery" is more time not running then time running it seems. (decreased blood flow, less adaptation intensity pace, less mobility/movement)
At higher mileage "recovery" isnt sitting on your butt, it is slow running (increased blood flow, more adaptation, an more keeping your joints limber an ready for next workout)
I think being at higher mileage can possibly keep you healthier then the stagnant period of training associated with lower mileage.
Injuries occur when yo do things that you aren't ready for. Higher mileage gets you ready to do harder workouts and races. This is why I'm a believer in "base training." Take your time increasing mileage, with easy mileage. Then, add workouts. Then, add races. Most, if not all, injuries I've had have come from building mileage while doing workouts at the same time. Also my personal experience is that the higher the mileage, the faster I recover. Also, maybe just me, but the more frequently I run, the more I enjoy running. I like 2 a days!
MileageHog wrote:
So what you're saying is higher mileage slows you down so you are healthier more frequently?
Yes, to handle higher mileage and do so consistently without breaking down, you have to slow down. Timothy Noakes wrote to someone I know and said something along the lines that 'long slow distance' is more sustainable over a lifetime than high intensity running. It's true-- it's what we're most adapted for.
Staying healthy is more intensity dependent than frequency dependent because of the greater stress imposed on muscle-to-bone with a higher intensity. The greatest stress to a bone is where the muscle inserts-- this can be both good and bad, depending on how it applied.
On the other hand, to esp. point out-- if you're not getting enough energy intake to counterbalance higher mileage (a likely overlooked factor), that's another issue in itself (~hormonal and catabolic effect on body tissue due to a negative energy balance). However, from a mechanical standpoint, low intensity/high mileage is less stressful and more sustainable than high intensity running.
If that is what you are saying, speed or jus "faster" training can be dangerous?..And is that possibly how a lot of injuries begin?
It's how it's applied. Higher intensity/low frequency exercise induces change, whereas low intensity/frequency exercise helps with maintenance and recovery to allow for supercompensation. The body thrives on a balance between rest and stress, and supercompensates when you rest. Great quote related to this, "Rest or regeneration is the most essential part of training for inducing optimal biological adaptations."-- Jan Olbrecht in "Science of Winning"
Also, the more you are active (low intensity?), the odds of injuries decrease (?), Because that makes your bones stronger?
Yes, the body likes to move frequently and get the blood flowing to the working muscles. This is why cross training is beneficial, but I would like to add walking to the mix, since it's weight bearing, natural, and the next closest thing to running. Then, to "move" twice a day (run/cross train/walk) is further beneficial.
So the "extra" mileage (mainly slower miles) builds stronger bones?
Sooo more doubles or recovery runs after workouts are good for you? Sorry for all the questions
This is the well supported thought. Look up research by Clinton Rubin at SUNY-Stoney Brook and David Burr/Alex Robling/Charles Turner at IUPUI. Burr/Robling/Turner did the research (2007?) that found that 4-6 hours between bouts is most anabolic. Rubin has done some interesting research with turkeys, who spend most of their daily time standing, which exhibits a low intensity/high frequency "vibrational force" of the muscles on bone. When you consider that our weight bearing, long bones are the strongest bones in the body (vs. the upper, non-weight bearing bones), how our bones are built/their strength/adapted is moreso influenced by this constant, low intensity/high frequency stress. Our lower legs are built to "endure"-- a high intensity stimulus is not something that evolutionarily we're meant to do a lot of.
I've sort of been putting all of this to the test with myself the past 10 years, having DXA data going back to 2002 and averaging over 100 mpw since Nov. 2006. My bone density continues to improve at all sites (hip/spine/whole body). When I was tested in '08 along with labmates, I had the best hip density of anyone, which they contributed to my running.
Now that you have improved my knowledge on what we are doing to our body when we are running, I have another question...
Do you have to keep increasing your mileage to keep getting faster? Or do u keep incorporating new stimuli to your training? Or can you stay at say..120 MPW an keep getting better year after year?
I have ran 70 MPW for years (4 to be exact) to only produce a 15:15 5k.
In less then a year after starting 100-120MPW I ran 14:55. Then Less then a year after that I ran a 14:30, on about the same MPW. Do I need to increase my mileage soon to keep seeing results? Or increase my workout days?
jaguar1 wrote:
I did my Master's thesis on enhancing bone recovery with whole body vibration training-- basically a low-magnitude, high frequency stimulus. You could equate this to ~walking, standing, low-intensity running. Low intensity activity is both safer and more anabolic to both soft and hard tissue. It's also more likely to be sustained long term and consistently-- it's what maintains bone/muscle mass. When done frequently (research supports 4-6 hours between bouts) it's even more anabolic. The reason why is because of increased blood flow, which also brings growth factors and nutrients-- the body likes to move, and move frequently.
Super interesting. Is your thesis available online - can you post a link?
MileageHog wrote:
Do you have to keep increasing your mileage to keep getting faster? Or do u keep incorporating new stimuli to your training? Or can you stay at say..120 MPW an keep getting better year after year?
I have ran 70 MPW for years (4 to be exact) to only produce a 15:15 5k.
In less then a year after starting 100-120MPW I ran 14:55. Then Less then a year after that I ran a 14:30, on about the same MPW. Do I need to increase my mileage soon to keep seeing results? Or increase my workout days?
I think you have to figure it out for yourself what mileage range you thrive in, and stick with that. I've experimented a lot with this over the years, getting up as high as 146 last year, and spending periods within different mileage ranges and training various ways. Mind you, I'm a woman, so this is a lot of time on the feet. For me, I feel the best between 120-130 mpw. What I've found over time, staying within this range, is that my intensity/paces for everything have naturally improved, with an equal or even lower heartrate. This has corresponded with performance improvements as well. When I've pushed the mileage higher (135-150), I start feeling more fatigued and lower energy-- I've spent good chunks of time in this range trying to adapt, and the result is always the same. When I've gone ``120, I eventually start to lose my 'aerobic power'. The trick too is allowing for adequate easy, recovery running between workouts. The answer isn't always more intensity or faster intensity, but rather how well you recover in between to supercompensate from the harder workout.
I really think you have to figure out for yourself what your "mileage sweet spot" is, and then mix in a good variety of quality with adequate rest/easy running in between. With greater aerobic and fitness development (and consistency), you'll find over you can naturally go faster without breaking down.
We recently had Jack Daniels over for a clinic, and picked his brain on all of this. He doesn't think anyone at any level needs to put in more than 2:30 of running per day, whether split into doubles or as a single long run. He thinks 2:30 is an adequate long run for anyone training for the marathon, even for those running %%4:00 marathons. Obviously, someone at the elite level will be going at a faster pace and covering more mileage.
Super interesting. Is your thesis available online - can you post a link?
Sure, send me an email, and I'll send it to you. Whole body vibration training works on the same principle as a ~bone stimulator-- it's simply a more functional rehab method.
sounds like an interesting thesis, however, the benefit of higher impact on bone density is fairly clear. jumping can be very helpful, impact needn't be long duration. impact itself is not mandatory-- swimming works fine. fatness and high lean mass are associated with better bones.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22162526
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21953474
dsrunner has the day off wrote:
sounds like an interesting thesis, however, the benefit of higher impact on bone density is fairly clear. jumping can be very helpful, impact needn't be long duration. impact itself is not mandatory-- swimming works fine. fatness and high lean mass are associated with better bones.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22162526http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21953474http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22230920http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22306928
The swimming study (#3) only says that swimming does not hurt bone density. It does not say that swimming increases bone density, as weight-bearing exercise is thought to do.
MileageHog wrote:
I have ran 70 MPW for years (4 to be exact) to only produce a 15:15 5k.
I think you should put the "only" in quotation marks. 15:15 on 70 MPW is great and shows talent.
In less then a year after starting 100-120MPW I ran 14:55. Then Less then a year after that I ran a 14:30, on about the same MPW. Do I need to increase my mileage soon to keep seeing results? Or increase my workout days?
I wouldn't change anything. Keep doing what you're doing and see if you drop another 10 to 20 seconds. Once you stagnate, change something.