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

Torabus wrote:

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.

Well you also have to factor in that the elite runners ARE the minority. They have the genes to be able to handle and respond well to that training. Some people no matter how hard they train they will never touch what some of those guys can do. Some people don't have the genes to run a sub 430 mile, a sub 16 5k, a sub 240 marathon, and then some guys do that fairly easily and then you have the elites who make a mockery of those times.

As for guys who run less Nick Willis is becoming more of a 1500/5k guy and he runs once a day 6 days a week like Lagat so his mileage is likely 60-70. Lagat is a 5k runner now with 60 mpw, touching on 70 during base. Lawi and Kithuka run 70-80 so sometimes more sometimes less than your proposed 75 mpw figure. Stephen Sambu I believe is about the same mileage as Lawi, just longer workouts for the road races.

Ultimately running is an individual thing, you have to find what works for you through careful and meticulous trial and error. Just because an elite runner does something doesn't mean you can, they might only be able to do it BECAUSE they are elite, or maybe they are elite IN SPITE OF something they do in their training. You don't know.

You have to experiment and find what works for you, using science and the elites as a guideline and for ideas until you find your perfect training program.

I don't mean to speak for the OP, but I think he's wondering if there is some point where you hit the max for "helpful running" each week depending on your event, and then from there it's just a matter of also keeping a low weight.

Some people will train right at that threshold and then just eat healthy to keep a low weight, and others will run "junk miles" beyond that helpful running limit and eat lots of pizza and other high calorie foods, but they keep their weight down because they are exercising so much even if it's not helping them get faster. So after that threshold, one eats healthy while the other eats junk food but runs junk miles to balance it, and both runners have the same result.

OP correct me if I'm wrong

What if you ran 50 mpw and replaced the other 50 with a crosstraining activity that kept the HR at the same level as you would if you were running?

people want to point to one thing, like weight management, as to why high mileage works, but there are many reasons.

essentially though, the body and mind get better at something the more it's done, up to the point where it's "too much" and then obviously things fall apart.

my guess is that the OP hasn't put in several seasons worth of high mileage and so doesn't really understand this matter with much depth.

jojojojo wrote:

What if you ran 50 mpw and replaced the other 50 with a crosstraining activity that kept the HR at the same level as you would if you were running?

Well obviously if the HR was the same then it wouldn't be "junk miles." The idea of junk miles is deciding to do a 5 or 6 mile cooldown instead of a 2 mile cooldown, but it's all really slow so your HR isn't up and it isn't giving you any benefit. If you did more mileage at the same heart rate, meaning just as fast or just as much effort, then that isn't junk mileage which is what the OP is referring to.

So if you do cross training at the same heart rate, that's just as much intensity. "Junk cross training" would be the same as "junk miles"

The Waterboy wrote:

The idea of junk miles is deciding to do a 5 or 6 mile cooldown instead of a 2 mile cooldown, but it's all really slow so your HR isn't up and it isn't giving you any benefit.

Renato Canova RE: TRAINING 9/24/2003 5:17PM - in reply to Coevett

Regeneration, as the name says, it means an activity that can help your body in quickly recovering the effects of fatigue.

For ex., after a session of SPECIFIC MARATHON ENDURANCE (like 4 x 5000m in 15' for an athlete able running 2:08, with 1000m recovery run in 3'20"), the level of lactate can be about 6 mmol.

The day after, in the early morning, of sure is not lower than 1.5 / 1.8 mmol.

If you go running for 1 hr very slow (is not important if is 6 or 7 min per mile), when you arrive your level of lactate decreased under 1 mmol (may be also 0.6), a value not available naturally.

So, the mean of regeneration IS NOT TO BUILD SOMETHING IN YOUR BODY, but is to permit a more fast recovery in order to prepare in a better way the next workout.

It's not true that running very slow it's not use. Resting a full day is not so good, in order to recover, as running slowly.

The problem is not running at medium pace every day, but modulating intensity and quantity, in order to improve in your endurance at high intensity.

For training high quality, we need complete recovery.

To "crush" the speed of training is always a mistake, because your body cannot develop its SUPERCOMPENSATION.

Read more:

Soreness and heavy legs are two results from poor physical cool down. I want my athletes to get lactate out of body. Yes, it is very important for this blood lactate to leave the body. Many times I see athletes run one day hard practice, and then legs will be very sore because lack of proper cool down. With such sore legs there is limit to an athlete and what he can do for that day.

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3205309&page=1#ixzz35Un9pVfF

great distance runners do not become great by just weighing less. that is silly.

but matt fitzgerald wrote a whole book about this:

http://www.amazon.com/Racing-Weight-Lean-Performance-Series/dp/1934030996

I think the book is respected.

The book is not respected. Matt Fitzgerald may be revered by the jogger but he is little more than a very good story-teller (I do not kid; he wrote one of my favourite books). He does not understand biology. He does not understand physics.

Journalism and entrepreneurism however, the boy has skills. That book undoubtedly made him plenty of cash but it has no content.

As for your comment that "great distance runners do not become great by weighing less". Plus one.

The high-mileage bashing is nothing new. US runners tried that approach starting in the mid 80s through around 2000. It was called "quality over quantity." I heard it at every clinic I attended and it dominated running literature at the time. That was hardly a golden era for US distance running. You could pretty much count the number of sub 13:30 5ks each year on one hand during that time. There were plenty of lean guys during those years, just not many with a solid aerobic foundation.

I honestly feel the original poster's hypothesis has more potential merit for experienced runners over 45 years old ...or thereabouts...particularly those with a background of high mileage. Not so much for runners in their prime.

Volume rules in my opinion. You rarely see a runner completely transform themselves through increased intensity...but you see it all the time when endurance athletes dramatically increase their volume.

However...after years and years and more years of high mileage, it feels like it gets to the point where the high mileage does nothing more than keep you light...but at a price. So if you can find a less stressful method of staying lean...that doesn't involve so much running...it could be effective...if that makes sense.

IDK...i can run a relaxed 100-110mpw and be 5lbs+ over race weight. it's not until i add intensity to my program in the form of longer, harder aerobic efforts (6 miles @ HM pace, 8-10 miles @ M pace, all in the context of longer runs) that i start to get really lean/fit & get closer to my performance goals. this of course prompts me to ease back the total mileage so i recover properly (say 80-90mpw). but maybe in 2-3 years i can do the same intensity AND get in the 100-110 mpw...it's a very "chicken and the egg" problem. you can always do more miles. but whether you can handle the miles & get a benefit depends on the person. high mileage for one person is not high mileage for everyone else.

PTF wrote:

Volume rules in my opinion. You rarely see a runner completely transform themselves through increased intensity...but you see it all the time when endurance athletes dramatically increase their volume.

rekrunner wrote:

My theory is "it depends on the runner"

This ^^^

Oh and OP, most weight gain/loss is determined by your metabolism, genetics, muscular frame, quality of mileage, etc

Way too many factors, "it depends on the runner"

PTF wrote:

I honestly feel the original poster's hypothesis has more potential merit for experienced runners over 45 years old ...or thereabouts...particularly those with a background of high mileage. Not so much for runners in their prime.

Volume rules in my opinion. You rarely see a runner completely transform themselves through increased intensity...but you see it all the time when endurance athletes dramatically increase their volume.

However...after years and years and more years of high mileage, it feels like it gets to the point where the high mileage does nothing more than keep you light...but at a price. So if you can find a less stressful method of staying lean...that doesn't involve so much running...it could be effective...if that makes sense.

I completely agree. I've known a lot of older runners who have success on moderate mileage, but who have very migh mileage backgrounds. To use Canova's metaphor, "their aerobic house is built."