training theory: it's not the high mileage, it's the weight management from it

Prove it.

I don't know if there's anything to your theory...but it's very intriguing. I have a hunch what you suggest may be more applicable to older...more experienced...runners. Hard thing to prove one way or the other because weight loss so often accompanies high mileage.

I have to admit...in the unusual cases where people run high mileage and still gain weight...it seems their times worsen in proportion to the weight gain.

I agree with you on this. I think you can get in good endurance work and good quality in one run a day. Like if your shortest run is 8 miles that is some good work. Short shakeout runs like 4-6 miles are relatively pointless.

Now, high mileage and lots of doubles work for some, I just think those athletes are in the minority.

Mileage improves both oxygen uptake and running economy. The neuromuscular benefits are huge. Because it is relatively slow, it is less likely to get one injured, which allows a brief block of speed work, pointing toward a peak. Being lean enhances both VO2max and economy. Mileage enhances leanness, unless one eats the western diet. The OP's explanatory model leaves out too many variables. Try running mileage and being vegan; leanness is guaranteed.

The main problem with high mileage is sustainability. Very few people can sustain it and many get hurt or perform badly because they do not take training breaks and do not do any periodization, as well as many other ways to screw up a high mileage program.

But it works. I did 100 mpw just for 6 weeks as an experiment. It was unreal how much stronger I was. 5k time dropped by 30 sec, 10k by 45 sec after a few years of being stuck on the same PRs. Of course, the biggest improvement was in the 1/2 and full marathon. But high mileage works. Period.

No offence but your theory is complete bollocks!

the430imperialmiler wrote:

The truth is, there are many runners running near world class times on 30-50 miles per week. Their "secret" is they stay at a very low weight.

.)

Pure and utter BS.

I weighed the same at 50 miles a week as I did at 120. You can probably guess which of these led me to run faster.

possibly

You are probably right that at a certain point the mileage isn't beneficial anymore. But I feel that's at a higher level than most elites are doing per week.

It's really about quality over quantity. If you can get more quantity without sacrificing qualify. You will be tough to beat. Quantity at the expense of quality (i.e. running 100 mpw instead of 80 but at a slower pace and no workouts) won't help short term. Will get your body accustomed to high mileage and you can be done.

Name names and what defines "near world class"?

that Callahan guy, was Princeton but transferred(idk which school he's at now), says he only runs 25 mpw.

Bannister probably ran about 25 mpw.

Grant Fisher runs 40 mpw plus soccer.

Alan Webb ran 50-60 mpw in HS senior year.

David Rudisha says he runs 60 kpw, so about 35-40 mpw.

Lagat runs 60 mpw. Lawi and Kithuka run 70-80 mpw.

You can pretty much run to your potential in the mid distances off relatively modest mileage. As you get into 5k/10k you might need a little more endurance work which varies from athlete to athlete but does require more mileage. Then when you get to the marathon you need a lot of mileage to run to your potential.

agc5k wrote:

that Callahan guy, was Princeton but transferred(idk which school he's at now), says he only runs 25 mpw.

Bannister probably ran about 25 mpw.

Grant Fisher runs 40 mpw plus soccer.

Alan Webb ran 50-60 mpw in HS senior year.

David Rudisha says he runs 60 kpw, so about 35-40 mpw.

Lagat runs 60 mpw. Lawi and Kithuka run 70-80 mpw.

You can pretty much run to your potential in the mid distances off relatively modest mileage. As you get into 5k/10k you might need a little more endurance work which varies from athlete to athlete but does require more mileage. Then when you get to the marathon you need a lot of mileage to run to your potential.

Yeah all those guys you named are mid-d runners ... and the two who aren't (2014-Lagat and Kithuka) are running 80 which is a good amount still. I don't think anyone would argue you can be a successful mid-d (mile down) runner off lower mileage.

But if the mid-d guys are running 30-60 then the typical 5K/10K guys probably need to be doing 80-100 to hit their potential. I can't say much about mileage over 100 from personal experience as I usually cap it at 100-105. I know there are plenty of runners out there (most of them are road/marathon guys) who improve off those 110-120 mile weeks, but for others it gets counterproductive (injuries/burnout) as you get too high.

I agree with those who said you don't want to sacrifice quality for quantity. But if you can still run a good pace and good workouts off high mileage than rack 'em up.

My theory is "it depends on the runner"

You raise an interesting point and although I do not believe that running weight is the sole variable I suspect that you may be correct that high mileage is not universally necessary.

Training works because it turns certain genes on and off. For most of us it will take high mileage to switch the genes to maximise mitochondria density for example. I've always wondered if for some those genes are just 'on' by default and the first time the runner heads out and does a mile, they run 4:50. We call 'certain genes on by default' a certain word: 'talent'.

Disclaimer: This is speculation on my part, but then it is a speculative thread.

I think everyones body is different. For some high mileage works, for some harder stuff with less miles works. Is it because of weight? Not sure, but that would be good if that were the case. I think if you can run less mileage and still race well then you probably will feel less tired and fresher during training and racing.

I use to run 60-70 mpw and thought that was the way to go but after a year long injury, coming back three years now while only running 40 mpw, getting closer to my best times and considering I'm 55 yo now I have to wonder if I really do need 60-70 mpw to race well. My weight is about the same as pre-injury which was/is around 156 lbs. Of course I'm only running mostly 5ks and 5 milers right now. For a marathon and maybe a half I'd need more mileage I think. Certainly a longer run of more than 9 miles.

might want to look at epigenetics and CRON low body weight triggers survival mode genes which could explain a boost in your ability to recover. The key is avoiding nutritional deficits which would be counter productive a real tight rope.

agc5k wrote:

Now, high mileage and lots of doubles work for some, I just think those athletes are in the minority.

High mileage is considered 75+ yes? How many professional 5k to Half Marathoners do you know of that run less than that?

Hell, Leer puts in 110 for a mile.

That's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. And anyway, low body fat is only one factor of many in what makes fast runners fast.