Anyone run PRs off of just consistent high mileage and no workouts?

I did that. 15 days running only long runs in varied terrain, at 4000 feet + 10 days, with very few runs + 5 days with 1 speed workouts 4x500/4x400/4x300 2 mins rest + a tempo run resulted in a 40 seconds imprvement in my 5k P.R note: the race was 6K so maybe If I had run for 5K only P.R would have been improved even more!

Thanks HRE for your rational comments. I believe this forum is here to help runners in general -- but especially those new to the sport. I find it inspiring that ex-elite guys like Malmo are continuing to add to the "lore" of the sport by taking an interest -- and the time -- to help out today's aspirants.

Anyway, through this thread, and the discussion with gvillian, some key points re. effective training have come out that all runners can use.

I dropped 50 seconds off of my 5000m (15:39-14:50) with almost nothing but base training. But I kept it quick nearly every day for 80-90, in mostly singles, miles a week. I would build through each run until I hit a pace that I felt I could hold for about an hour or so, and tried to maintain. Typically I'd start right around 6:30 the first mile, then build down to 6:00-5:50s for around 9-10 miles and close the last mile strong (sub 5:30 if I could). I'd also do strides/150s many days out of the week. Long run was 17-19 on Saturdays and I'd keep that sub 6:30 at the slowest. Made 5:00 feel like a jog in races after not racing for a few months leading up to my PR. I also neg split big in the race I PR'd in, which I also think is a key in races over 800m.

Great advice. Thanks for this "case study"!

There was a fairly substantial thread about this topic a while back:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=309865

I don't know, I don't think he said "ALL" workouts were bad or unnecessary, more like "workouts" versus " relax or easy run" is interpreted differently to various people. Of course I know a workout is anything you exert in exercise whether it be slow or fast...just a matter of semantics. No need to criticize every detail...I get what 'gvillian' is saying.

Don't *know* about their training... I forgot a word, my mistake. And again, you just aren't understanding what I'm saying. Yes, it was unnecessary to point that all runs are workouts. Completely unnecessary. But that isn't really I have issue with. It's the insinuation that that using the term that way signifies a lack of understanding about the importance of mileage/recovery runs. It's an unfounded judgment based on jumping to a conclusion that very well may be, and in most cases probably is, incorrect. And it insults the intelligence of other runners. I've been more than clear on that. The problem here you seem to be debating your version of what you think I'm saying, not WHAT I'm actually saying.

I can remember running some fast times (for me) off of just mileage but thinking back at it I can remember running with friends on a regular basis and beating the crud out of each other on runs.

I guess I was doing workouts. I just was not keeping track.

I know what you're saying. But I think malmo's comment speaks to a difference in ways of looking at training that is worth noting. It comes from a very different mindset than I see in many "modern" models. For many it may be unnecessary but for some it's something they should see even and you still aren't answering my question as to what harm there is in pointing it out.

That's fine. I was pretty sure there was no real reason and I'm done asking.

The comment that all runs are workouts is wrong unless you are a hobby jogger. Hobby joggers and gym rats "workout".

In horse racing, a workout is intervals.

In running, a workout is intervals or speed work.

I'm sure this is what the OP meant, right?

After years of trying to run 'structured workouts' (intervals) twice a week I realized I would rather run seven days a week slow than try to fun fast and end up injured. From the age of 42 to 45 I ran nothing but easy miles. During my once weekly long run I would include 5 miles at a harder/ race pace. The result was some of my best marathons ever. For perspective, when structuring two workouts I was running 50-55 miles per week. When running easy I ran 60-65 mpw. The easy miles led to faster times. Just my 2 cents.

I too understood the OP's question. I'm not sure everyone understands malmo's answer.

Here's my Hobbyjogger take on OP's question. Take with a grain of salt.

In HS XC our coach never ran us more than 30 mpw, and each year I gradually improved throughout the season. Then the season ended while I was still improving and I wasnt consistent enough to reach a peak or plateau. I wasnt the top guy on the team so nobody cared, and I just thought that I sucked.

Couple years later (I didn't run in college), I started running on my own to test my potential. After a few months of 40 mpw I caught up to my HS times, and a few months after that, started PRing. Granted, these were crappy PRs, brought on by lack of prior consistency. After a full year of 50-60 mpw, continued to make improvements and finally saw some plateau. I never did speedwork, but I did run an all-out mile every few weeks to assess fitness gains (going from 5:20 to 4:40 in a year, and 18:00 to 16:20 in the 5k).

Based on personal experience, I would argue that your fitness level continues improving off consistent mileage until your body adapts to the level of fitness needed for that workload (aka you plateau), then up the mileage, adapt, etc, up to a certain limit that's dictated by your talent.

Most posters on this board are probably already at a high level of fitness so they need the speed workouts as means for marginal improvement.

There's definitely a lack of respect for the depth of Malmo's answer, both here, and in many other threads. Why? Because there's lack of respect for the complicated 2-way conversation you (should) have with your body in training.

When you run, just about the only thing you have 100% voluntary control over is lacing up and heading out the door. From there on, your body has plenty to say and control, whether you realize it or not. Despite all the training strategies and tactics out there, developed and honed over the last several decades, nothing comes near to matching the sophistication of the complex feedback/response system built into your body, and this applies to ANY effort. Your body has no timer, odometer, speedometer, but it's doing *something* very elaborate that we only partly understand. Until we have an army of nanobots swimming around in side us, there's no way for us to 100% objectively track and control this process.

So our best current option is to rely on the "feeling" we get from our bodies, which we are most apt to do in an "easy" run. Thus Malmo's "easy" run is really a much more sophisticated training session than any "structured workout" anyone can currently construct.

This is really important to fully appreciate. The only constants for everyone to follow in training are a few principles:

1. Consistency

2. Individuallization

3. Constant experimentation to match the current stress-adaptation capabilities of your body.

This is well said. Developing one's "body intuition" is no doubt important for all runners. A good coach should always defer to each runner's personal body feedback, and adjust a run or the program accordingly.

And getting back to the OP's question, yes, there are hundreds of anecdotal and practical training-group examples, as well as tens of scientific studies, to endorse the idea that maximal aerobic development is (far and away) the prime determinant in endurance running performance.

That's a really good post.

Geeze. This thread blew up as I was away for a few days. I appreciate the responses and there were some good posts here. Obviously, I'm sure everyone knew what I meant with my initial post. Malmo made a good point though.

Anyway, I have a good/general understanding of training and the physiological aspects of it. I really just wanted to hear from actual runners that have had real experience seeing this occur. I had a pretty successful high school career, running a 4:19 mile. However, I was never coached with much mileage...maybe 35mpw with many hard track intervals. The beginning of my college career showed great upside, running 3:55 and sub 8:30 3K, but was plagued with injuries. I was never able to have a constant season of high mileage...maybe 65mpw average.

Anyway, as of now, I'm at many weeks of solid mileage (70's and 80's)..I know that's not extremely high, but it is to me right now. I'm hoping to increase after a down week and if my body feels good.

I'm looking to run some races soon and might report back on how it goes. I think it'll be interesting how fit I am compared to prior years with minimal mileage and hard track intervals.

Cheers

By the way, GlobalView, you did come off pretty darn arrogant. My goodness. Try not falling off that horse you're riding.

Yeah, I had an issue with the way GlobalView spoke of other runners' perception of their training. It seemed lack a little respect for their knowledge/intelligence. But we knew what you meant. The answer to your I think most can agree on is yes you can. The pure mileage and recovery runs are the cornerstones of your training. But I won't 'hijack' your thread any further. Good luck with your training!