Can't seem to build mileage past 40 MPW

Run slower when pushing to new mileage levels. Also you probably have weak hip abductors and external rotators. Make sure your stride frequency isn't too low when you run easy, either. Wejo ran slower than 7:00 miles and he ran 28:06 for 10k.

Hey, thanks for responding. I'm going to look up some exercises that strengthen the hip abductors and external rotators.

I have a hard time running slow; I feel like I'm landing flat. I'll keep this in mind, though. Maybe just being conscious of it will help.

When you up mileage do you try a base phase where your workouts are minimally demanding and building mileage is the primary focus? Works well for me. I was running 30-35 when I started and I'm doing 70-75 five years later.

I also like to take every third or forth week back. So when building from 60 to 70 I think I actually made the jump directly but it looked more like this:

W1: 70

W2: 45

W3: 70

W4: 70

W5: 45

And so on, until I could comfortably sustain for a few weeks at a time. I still cut back every forth week or so nowadays but I try to time it with a race.

And as a catch-all it might be good to check your ferritin. I recommend this to everyone who mentions feeling fatigued whether or not it's likely to be the actual cause, but if it is it can lead to some great things once you correct it.

Some people just aren't "made" for higher mileage and don't respond well to it.

There will ALWAYS be a tradeoff between intensity and volume-if you want to raise your mileage, you'll have to a) slow down when running the additional mileage and b) make workouts less stressful (or cut them entirely) and minimize other sources of stress such as the following:

poor sleep habits

poor diet

poor running form

late nights

getting sick

etc etc.

Even if you do everything perfectly, there is no guarantee that higher mileage is the way to go. Some people here will say that high mileage is something that everyone can do and everyone can benefit from, but that just isn't true. In the long term, it may have some benefits, but in the short term it will probably make you slower compared to low/moderate mileage.

Some people are more fast twitch/powerfully built, and their form is better the faster they go. Almost all 800m athletes are like this-tall, powerful FT with a fair amount of endurance-many respond great to 40-60 miles a week, MAYBE 70, but anything more and they start to break down, form changes, hips go back, gym sessions tank, etc. About half of 1500m athletes are like this. Webb, Symmonds, Gray, Coe...they generally thrive off of gym work, intervals, hillsprints/strides, a bit of threshold/AT work and moderate mileage.

Others are the opposite, and can handle mileage much better. Generally skinnier, lighter, more ST. Not much speed but can run for days. They might still have good 1500m PRs, but they are a different animal. Rupp, ritz, kenyans, farah, etc. They thrive off of higher mileage, a bit of speed and a lot of long hard runs.

At 40, try and get to the 50s range, but get to 50s+workouts before going to 60s and 70s, etc. It takes a long time to adapt to higher mileage.

If you are going for 5k, the mileage can definitely help, as 40 is quite low. What are your 400/800/1500 and 5k PRs? If you have very good speed, it is likely that you won't thrive off of high mileage (the lydiardites will yell at me for that, but it's often true!)

The only thing that I can think of is cutback weeks where every third or fourth week you drop down to about 30 miles to give your body a chance to rest and get used to the higher mileage. Best of luck to you.

Great responses so far. Thanks, guys.

xenonscreams- It's funny, I have my hs athletes take it easy every fourth week but don't really do this myself. No good reason; I think I just get excited when things are going well and want to keep the ball rolling. Sounds like good advice, though.

intense weeks- Without a doubt, I resemble the FT group more than the ST group. PRs are 59/2:18/4:45/18:48.

So

59/69/76/90 pace per 400m. The "horwill rule" says that for female athletes, double the distance and you'll slow down ~5s/lap.

So

59/2:08/~4:19/~16:30 is your "potential".

However, keep in mind some people, even elite athletes that meet their "potential", might slow down 6 or 7 seconds per lap if they are well trained and more fast twitch. You are slowing down 10, 7 and 7 (14/2) seconds, so while your endurance is definitely lacking, perhaps you are just a 200/400m athlete that has OK endurance.

Mileage might help with that, or it might get you injured, turn that 59 speed into 62 speed, it could change your form negatively, you might enjoy training less, etc. It sounds as if you are somewhat strugging to stay at 40 mpw as it is...why not keep it there and focus on workouts rather than pushing to 50?

Bottom line, mileage will definitely help your 1500/5k+ times, but only if it is mileage you are ready for.

I admit I've never heard of the Horwill Rule, but those times you extrapolated from my 400 PR seem REALLY fast; much faster than those I've seen on other calculators. I'll have to read up on this formula at some point.

The idea that I'm a 200/400 athlete with okay endurance is something that's never crossed my mind. I don't know, man; I love my tempo runs, and if I do say so myself my 1500 time is not one most sprinters could run.

Regardless of all that, I actually love the idea of focusing on workouts instead of mileage. My concerns are that such a plan would either create a low ceiling/plateau or cause injury from lack of base.

Is this a generally accepted training philosophy? Are there good middle distance runners who skip the base phase and start with workouts before trying to increase mileage? I feel like I only see the opposite.

Thanks again for your interesting comments.

Your 1500m time, if I may say so, is 17 seconds/lap slower than your 400m time, which doesn't exactly point towards amazing endurance.

Many sprinters do tempo runs as well-or at least intervals at/near tempo pace.

Your heart is clearly not in the raising mileage thing-after reading several of your posts, I'd say: don't do it.

The "base phase" is overrated, particularly for fast twitch athletes. YES, there is a time for higher mileage and a time for lower mileage, but there should always be a fair amount of quality in your week, which I think you would lose if you went to 50-60 miles a week.

40 miles per week will NOT get you your best 5k time. It'll get you 95% of the way there IF you do specific 5k work, or 85-90% of the way there without it.

But it seems like it is what you need.

I wouldn't go below 40 miles per week, however. 40-45 miles is sort of the breaking point (at least in my experience) where the body changes from "OK I run a bit, but not much, so it's OK to have this 8lbs of upper body muscle and 5lbs of fat" and "OK, I'm a RUNNER, fat has no place on me!". Dropping to 20 or 30 would probably change body comp even if you kept/focused on workouts.

Sounds like 40-45+ workouts is your ideal move.

With that much off a drop-off to her 5K time (I can run a faster 5K than that and there's no way in hell I could run any of her other times listed), lower mileage, AND the admission that she doesn't take cutback weeks and doesn't take her easy runs truly easy, I'm going to go ahead and voice my disagreement with "intense weaks."

I'm pretty sure correctly upping your mileage as opposed to forcing it could make a huge difference in your 5K if you care about it and 40 mpw is high school mileage (and your times drop off the way high school girls' times usually drop off). At the very least I think it's worth trying for a season. It's not like training decisions are permanent.

Like if her goal is to run a faster 800 or 1500 then her mileage is fine, but if she wants to run a faster 5K there's no way in hell she should be staying at the mileage she's at.

xenonscreams wrote:

Like if her goal is to run a faster 800 or 1500 then her mileage is fine, but if she wants to run a faster 5K there's no way in hell she should be staying at the mileage she's at.

In almost every post, the OP has expressed enjoying the shorter distances and lower mileage.

I'll absolutely agree that no one is gonna run their best 5k off of 40miles a week, but clearly this athlete would be better remaining at 40miles+workouts rather than bumping it to 50 or higher, ESPECIALLY considering the fact that she said she was still struggling/adapting to 40 a week.

intense weaks wrote:

xenonscreams wrote:

Like if her goal is to run a faster 800 or 1500 then her mileage is fine, but if she wants to run a faster 5K there's no way in hell she should be staying at the mileage she's at.

In almost every post, the OP has expressed enjoying the shorter distances and lower mileage.

I'll absolutely agree that no one is gonna run their best 5k off of 40miles a week, but clearly this athlete would be better remaining at 40miles+workouts rather than bumping it to 50 or higher, ESPECIALLY considering the fact that she said she was still struggling/adapting to 40 a week.

Obviously, this makes me wonder what I could do (over 5k, specifically) if I bumped up to 50 or 60 a week.

So I guess we're in agreement that it depends on her goals but in disagreement over what her goals are, haha

xenonscreams wrote:

Like if her goal is to run a faster 800 or 1500 then her mileage is fine, but if she wants to run a faster 5K there's no way in hell she should be staying at the mileage she's at.

There are some local 5k runners that are extremely fast and "low" mileage. They built up over a long period of time and they're secret is not to get injured. According to this interview here, at least one sub-elite runner does 45-60mpw and from athlinks has a PR under 15minutes.

So not everyone needs high mileage as described in "lore" books like once a runner. Don't be a slave to the mileage. Work up over time, do some cross training and add quality! The cult of high mileage is just that. You can do a faster 5k on 45mpw. Only 5mpw more.

If you're getting frequent injuries running 50 mpw you're probably doing something else wrong. I'm not suggesting high mileage; 50 is not a lot of running. Neither is 60, but 50 would probably be sufficient for the 5k.

Heh, and it took all of about 3 posts before this...

deixa de recalque wrote:

Regardless of all that, I actually love the idea of focusing on workouts instead of mileage.

I am a male. 40 miles a week just hammers me. I get sick, injured, and display every symptom of overtraining in the books. I have learned to approach 40 mpw rarely and carefully.

Just as talent is genetically variable, so is durability. I have tried to make peace with that.

A little clarification for intense weeks and xenonscreams:

My primary running goal for the foreseeable future is to lower my 5k PR. Why 5k instead of the shorter distances over which I have demonstrated more talent? That's pretty simple. It's a soft PR that I feel I can improve upon substantially. I also enjoy that distance the more I race it.

I do like faster stuff more than slow mileage. We tend to prefer the things we're good at, right? I'm no different. However, that certainly doesn't mean I'm not committed to mastering higher mileage. I'm extremely willing to do things I don't necessarily love if I think they will help me achieve my goals. Whatever that happens to be, as long as it doesn't get me hurt or leave me perpetually thrashed, my heart is most definitely in it.

I've loved reading the comments so far. Please keep the mileage-building tips coming if you think of any new ones, but also please feel free to chime in on the other issues up for debate: whether mileage helps everyone and whether shorter, more intense programs are seen on the elite circuit.

Go on about your diet. I had to work hard to get the carbs and fat in to get from 35 to 45 mpw without feeling really fatigued. What's your caloric breakdown of carbs/fat/protein in percentages?

Do you use a heart rate monitor at all? That would be a strong indicator of if you're simply taking your runs too hard. I think a lot of people, maybe even OP, fall into the trap of thinking you always need to run fast to race fast. Then they take these paces which are at the upper end of what they're able to handle at a certain weekly mileage, and add more relatively fast training runs and get overtrained in a snap. Reason I suspect this is OP has good speed but poor endurance - maybe too used to fast training runs.