High Mileage vs Low Mileage - 800m/1500m

First off let me say you have to be objective and using anecdotal evidence based on athletes you've never trained with or understood their training doesn't do well to prove any points (ie. Ritz ran high mileage in HS so therefore we have to do high mileage, Wheating ran low mileage in HS so therefore we have to do low mileage etc.). Working with HS level athletes I have had much more success with the low volume approach with a focus on running efficiency and speed endurance. High mileage requires the proper mindset and my experience the only ones who do well in higher mileage programs are self motivated and are very willing to do that type of training on their own. The average kid can comprehend shorter, quicker training and will have success a bit quicker which in long run is most important (counter intuitive, I know) but I've tried to throw distance at newer athletes and almost every single one quit because it was boring or didn't feel like the distance runs improved their performance. The ones who ran shorter quicker stuff saw PRs drop quickly and stayed with the sport. I feel with the younger kids you need to give a little to get a little. Do what they will enjoy.

J.D.Adams14 wrote:

There is new research out there that supports low mileage training for middle distance runners, with a focus on strength training and tempo/interval runs. However, conservative coaches and runners still rely on the fact on that high mileage builds strength and endurance.

Though this has been a common thread topic, it has not been updated in sometime. I am eager to hear what the thread has to say. I define high mileage as 70-90 mpw and low mileage as 30-50 mpw, as defined by my previous coaches.

This depends on the athlete whether they are a 400m/800m athlete, 800m/1500m athlete, or a 1500m/3000m athlete. If you have any opinions, express them in terms of age level (high school, college, pro).

Very interesting, it would be cool if others joined in. What is your opinion for a college 800/1500 runner who is mostly a pure 800m runner, and wants the 1500 as icing on the cake?

The more and more I think about it, I feel it doesn't take 70+ to run a good 800m to 5K. You simply can't get enough "fast" running in, or acclimating your body to fast stuff if you are running at 7:30 pace for nearly 70-80% or your runs.

To me - and I'm not a scientist - that just makes you good at running 7:30 pace.

I think about races where things weren't going my way. In the middle of the 5K where I'm getting passed at the 2 mile point...and I'm thinking to myself "I really should have done some more 5 mile tempo runs." Or, at the end of a 400m run when I got passed by semi-chubby 19:XX 5K guy because he was a legitimate fast twitch runner and I had been focusing on longer intervals at the time and just couldn't answer.

Literally the next day, I'm thinking about what I lack and focusing on that. Slower mileage was never came to mind as the solution...but I end up doing it because I keep being TOLD to do it.

I'm questioning all of this stuff because I just wrapped up a week of 71 miles of slow running in the base phase....and I sort of asked myself "what is the purpose of this shit if I'm only running 3 miles?"

I actually wrote out a workout plan for myself, instead of following something periodized plan, which caters to my individual needs as a 800m to 5K guy.

It went something like this.

M - 4-5 mile tempo + 4x200 to simulate that end of the 5K surge

T - 40 minutes of steady running

W - 800 Meter Runner Workouts - Hills, 200/400/600's, etc.

TH - 40 minutes of steady running or slow recovery depending on how you feel.

FR - 5K Runner Intervals, 800's, 1000's, Mile Repeats

ST - OFF

SU - LONG RUN for endurance - 12-14 miles.

That is four solid days of work in one week, maybe one day of SLOW running.

This plan works nearly every system that a middle distance runner needs and is probably under 50 miles of running. Probably not the training of a Olympian, but really a solid week of training for a guy who wants to destroy your local 5K races and run a decent mile.

Just so this doesn't get off topic, because I think this is interesting and has some potential, but running 7:30 miles is ridiculous. Elite runners are not getting 70-80% of their mileage at 7:30 pace. Maybe 10%-15%, which is comprised of first miles on runs and jogging between intervals and the beginning of a cool-down.

There's absolutely no reason you would have to run most of your mileage at 7:30 pace.

Not that I have any science or objective data to back this up (I'm sure there is some, I'm just lazy), but there is no doubt in my mind that the strength from higher mileage = speed at the end of a race. All things being equal, the athlete that runs 40-60 mpw with a good portion of the work being being quality miles i.e. tempos/repeats/medium effort longer runs will not beat the athlete who runs the same quality # of miles, BUT ADDS an additional 30+% more miles at easy/medium efforts as well. Of course, the extra mileage comes at the risk of injury. Also, I would not be suprised if there is an unintended "speed work" benefit from long runs at easy/medium efforts. Again, can't back it up with anything objective (other than my own training and success, which is entirely subjective and not always successful), but my hypothesis is that strength = speed or more aptly, strength allows us to harness the speed that we have.

b real wrote:

Just so this doesn't get off topic, because I think this is interesting and has some potential, but running 7:30 miles is ridiculous. Elite runners are not getting 70-80% of their mileage at 7:30 pace. Maybe 10%-15%, which is comprised of first miles on runs and jogging between intervals and the beginning of a cool-down.

Yeah - but the majority of us will never be "elite". The majority of us don't run sub-15. If you look at Daniel's Running Formula, he has a sub-17 5K guy (good local road racer), running all easy miles at sub 7:25. Some of his plans call for a 4 (?) weeks of running like that before getting into the workouts.

I've seen both sides. Type examples of runners I've hung out with.

1. Runner A: 35 miles a week max, almost all of his runs are at 6:15 pace. His 5K PR? 18:05! Clearly, running a intense low mileage weeks didn't work for him. However, prior to this type of schedule, he actually ran high mileage and BQ'd on this first attempt! This is a guy who should have continued running higher mileage in my opinion...

2. Runner B: He claims he ran 65+ miles per week for two years and had minimal success - mid-17's. This is a guy with sub-28 speed in a 200. Decent for "distance" guy. He ran almost everything around a 7:10-7:45 pace and did maybe one or two workouts per week. He finally decided to quit running that much two years ago - cutting out the crappy 4 mile runs at 7:30 pace in the morning - and just doing 40-50 with lots of speed (his plan is not far removed from the one I typed above) and he's close to breaking 16 now.

I think, like most other things in life, you need to address your weaknesses and work on them to get better.

Continue to focus on your strengths. If you are someone who can just hop of bed and knock out a 18 miler with not much of a problem, but have lousy top-end speed, start adding a few 200/400's to your training plan and you'll find yourself faster.

I do not support mega mileage, but I'm not sure what optimal mileage is and within that mileage how much quality can you handle. Most of my PRs have come when I'm simply in good shape. I'm doing the most miles at that point, somewhere between 50 and 60. I think people get caught up in mileage for mileage sake. If you're doing X miles per week, it's probably the consistency that is most beneficial.

A lot of people who do big mileage get hurt a lot. It's evident that if you're not able to run, you can't set PRs, so where did your 90+ mile weeks get you.

Costill and Karp say that somewhere around 70 mpw, the gains are fairly small and the chance for injury outweighs the increase in mileage.

My opinion is that specificity tends to get lost and really you should focus on your goal. If you want to break 6 minutes in the mile, spend your time doing reps at 90 sec/400. Still, though, you need to be in shape to do 90 sec/400.

You lose any and all credibility when you start quoting Jason Karp.

It also comes down to what level you're talking about too. High school, college (what division can matter), elite/pro? Male/female. And there can be a lot of variability within each of those.

In all seriousness, what is wrong with Karp?

For starters:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=3624812&thread=3624812

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=3079687&thread=3078936

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=3035469&thread=3035469

Now obviously this is Letsrun where everybody--unless you're an up and coming blue collar athlete on the verge of making it big--gets busted up. But by all accounts this guy is a lot of talk and self fluffing.

John McDonnel, one of the best track and xc coaches at Arkansas, was interviewed by Runner's World for his achievements and honors. When asked about his athletes training he commented:

"I believe in quality runs, not just going out and pounding the pavement or trail for 90mpw. If my guys are running 40 mpw, their running them at tempo pace."

Ergo, quality over quantity. Some people comment on Coe's training of having roughly low mileage and lots of weights and speedwork. Even during the days of Bannister, 30mpw was not uncommon.

This is an idiotic debate based on false premises.

It's entirely a false dichotomy. An athlete who might run 7-90 miles a week in the winter, doing conditioning work, might very well only be running 40-50 a week in the summer during the track season itself. A "high mileage" advocate will point to the winter conditioning work and say "see! you gotta have the base." A low-mileage advocate will say "see! he only ran 50 a week AT MOST when he was racing well!"

The big picture is rarely as simple as that. If you look at an athlete's training program and ONLY look at global weekly volume, you're ignoring at least half a dozen more important things.

I also summarily reject your premise that running 70+ a week necessitates doing most of it at a jogging pace. Some of history's best milers were doing 70+ a week and running quite quick more days than not, before dropping mileage and emphasizing track work more.

El G was a ~70mi a week guy during his conditioning phases- in the schedules you can find online, he was often doing 30' runs twice a day right around 5:00/mile (so he's covering up to six miles in each session, or about 11mi/day when you get conservative estimating fractions and allowing him a few minutes to get going).

John Walker, Steve Cram, Steve Ovett, and Steve Scott (wow, guess to be a good miler should be named Steve?) would run something on the order of an hour a day for their main session and that hour would NOT be a jog. Granted, 5:20 pace for those guys isn't as fast as it'd be for you and me and Uncle Joe, but running for an hour at ~90 seconds/mile slower than your mile PR is not useless jogging by any stretch. Most of those guys doubled a few times a week, too.

It's stupid to write out a whole training program based on LIMITING one factor. It's better to do the training you require and let volume/intensity take care of itself.

It's been known for more than a half-century that a certain degree of non-specific, general conditioning ("base" "fundamental" "marathon training" whatever you want to call it) goes a long way toward good running when you do it before specific/race prep training. Does everyone need to run 1000 miles in a 10wk period like Peter Snell did? Likely not. Are you going to excel running multiple 1500m rounds in a championship when you're not running much more than 35' a day? Ehh, maybe, but I don't like those odds.

I say the focus on volume is way overrated. You see coaches touting low mileage/high mileage programs and I wonder why volume is the defining characteristic of a program. Most of history's best milers have showed us that plenty of good, hard continuous running + hills + speedwork = success.

The exact amounts of each will vary, but I have trouble believing you're going to run a very good 1500m on what, 40' of running a day- especially if you're going to be running rounds.

I'm not saying every miler must run 100 a week, but rather that if one is preparing properly and covering all bases, the volume shouldn't be a concern. It will be what it is- trying to match your volume to ideology is a fool's errand. If you're training appropriately and running 100 a week during the winter, and 40 a week during track training, and you average, counting your time off and missed training for illness/injury/work, something like 65/wk for the year, are you low mileage? High mileage? Moderate mileage? It doesn't matter. The volume question is not a be-all-end-all.

It depends on the athlete. Some people will respond very well to low mileage and high quality, while others respond well to high mileage and moderate quality. The optimal mix of mileage and specific workouts depends on the athlete's muscle composition, ability to recover, CNS, and dozens of other factors. That understanding is what separates great coaches from mediocre by-the-book dot connectors.

Just to give an example, I ran my mile PR after a summer of high mileage and tempo runs. Doing speed workouts didn't make me any faster, and actually usually made me slower.

Until you've observed a runner and their individual needs, 80mpw is a good place to start for 1500m for college and beyond. Check oldsub4's thread and gags' training. 80mpw is not high mileage - this can be done easily with a full day off.