low miles = better wrote:
txRUNNERgirl wrote:Quality + Quantity + Recovery
= FAIL
about a 4:1 ratio of quality to quantity = success
pouring over training logs of the best amateur runners I know, I've found that despite wildly different plans, they all do 75-80% "Easy" miles, meaning slower than MP. It's really a striking consistency, so I've come to emulate it.
QUANTITY PHYSICS wrote:
The reason the QUALITY method worked for you is because you did QUANTITY for four years.
This x 100
autoxfil wrote:
[quote]low miles = better wrote:
pouring over training logs of the best amateur runners I know, I've found that despite wildly different plans, they all do 75-80% "Easy" miles, meaning slower than MP. It's really a striking consistency, so I've come to emulate it.
I think you mean poring.
Are these amateur marathon runners?
Are they doing that consistently year-round? If so they may want to do some reading.
TDodd22 wrote:High mileage will develop many things, including, muscle memory, aerobic capacity, mental strength, physical strength which will lead to speed if you're doing things the right way.I'll give this, muscle toughness is the only thing quantity clearly trumps quality on if that's what you meant by physical strength. With muscle memory and the aerobic capacity, I think its fairly obvious quality wins out maybe I'm misunderstanding. Mental strength is too philosophical to judge on. So given these criteria Quality 2, Quantity 1. Quality wins.
Randy Oldman wrote:
autoxfil wrote:[quote]low miles = better wrote:
pouring over training logs of the best amateur runners I know, I've found that despite wildly different plans, they all do 75-80% "Easy" miles, meaning slower than MP. It's really a striking consistency, so I've come to emulate it.
I think you mean poring.
Are these amateur marathon runners?
Are they doing that consistently year-round? If so they may want to do some reading.
I certainly did mean poring. Pouring over the logs gets them terribly soggy.
These are hypothetical marathoners. I'm not suggesting either approach for non-hypothetical marathoners.
autoxfil wrote:
low miles = better wrote:= FAIL
about a 4:1 ratio of quality to quantity = success
pouring over training logs of the best amateur runners I know, I've found that despite wildly different plans, they all do 75-80% "Easy" miles, meaning slower than MP. It's really a striking consistency, so I've come to emulate it.
You shouldn't get this info wet, no matter what format it's in.
Not sure to which science you are referring.
But here's some...unfortunately it doesn't support your "theory."
I believe you are right but you said the science is conclusive. So do you have a link to the science? Thats what namehere was referring to.
low miles = better wrote:
namehere wrote:And you're missing my point. How can you know that the low mileage week is sub-par to the high mileage just because in one specific case (yours), it was too much? Perhaps other runners can recover from the previous days better than you did and complete the quality workouts while keeping their mileage up.
Sorry my friend, but I think we're talking about two separate things here. I'm talking about the total weekly mileage -- put the whole quality thing in a separate category for now. Just in terims of overall QUANTITY, it is a measure that is not conducive to a high level of performance. You need a blend of both in order to achieve fitness gains, people often benefiting in the 100+ mpw range at a consistent level This is smart training, as it allows the body to adapt fully to a training stimulus over a consistent number of weeks. When mileage is sought as a means in itself, the results are at best mediocre, the quality bringing the overall total much less than what you would otherwise run. For high miles to even be effective, they need to be over 100 mpw or so -- not nearly as effective as good QUALITY running.
The focus NEEDS to shift from quanity to quality.
i know but.... wrote:
The real question is 'How does high mileage affect global warming?'.
Yah just think that if everybody in the world increases their exercise output by 1%, that is about 500,000 tons of CO2 in the air... Why haven't we explored this hypothesis more yet?!?!
Linear periodization. Do some reading.
I trained under the guidance of JK and experimented much. Nothing is proven but here is my experience:
I did mileage where I averaged 140s, 130s, 120s, all the way down to 20s.
120+ is unnecessary and I'm sure many of you agree.
The absolute most important factor is threshold runs; the high end runs and tempos. If you can master these than you can be very successful from just 50-60 miles a week.
I would say 90-105 is ideal with the mastering of the threshold. nothing wrong with reaching 120 even if its for the mental reason: "I ran 120 miles per week. I cannot blame my mileage as the excuse for my poor training / performance."
When it comes to end of the season, I had great success even at 25 miles a week. As long as you hit your workouts then your training will improve you. You can, in theory, take your easy days off or I would recommend light cross training. every workout: "what is the purpose of my workout today? How will this effort make me better?"
never be afraid to cut a workout early if you feel the workout will not make you better (maybe because you feel like crap or , simply, you're to tired.)
From my 36 years of experience as a runner I have heard many debates as it relates to quality vs quantity. It seems that ultimately, the very best runners in the world, historically and at present run in excess of 100 miles per week with "quality".
From personal experience, I did improve significantly when I raised my miles from 50 to 70 and then finally 90s were my sweet spot. As some people have mentioned on this thread, volume does allow one to do more " quality" without breaking down.
The links above my be of interest.
good Art wrote:
http://www.trainingscience.net/?page_id=128http://run-fit.com/mileage.pdfFrom my 36 years of experience as a runner I have heard many debates as it relates to quality vs quantity. It seems that ultimately, the very best runners in the world, historically and at present run in excess of 100 miles per week with "quality".
From personal experience, I did improve significantly when I raised my miles from 50 to 70 and then finally 90s were my sweet spot. As some people have mentioned on this thread, volume does allow one to do more " quality" without breaking down.
The links above my be of interest.
You're Rich Gibbens I presume? That's your site you're promoting above. Tell everyone about your 25-30 minute 5k times and your one and only marathon, which took you more than 4 hours to run.
Idiot richard99 wrote:
good Art wrote:http://www.trainingscience.net/?page_id=128http://run-fit.com/mileage.pdfFrom my 36 years of experience as a runner I have heard many debates as it relates to quality vs quantity. It seems that ultimately, the very best runners in the world, historically and at present run in excess of 100 miles per week with "quality".
From personal experience, I did improve significantly when I raised my miles from 50 to 70 and then finally 90s were my sweet spot. As some people have mentioned on this thread, volume does allow one to do more " quality" without breaking down.
The links above my be of interest.
You're Rich Gibbens I presume? That's your site you're promoting above. Tell everyone about your 25-30 minute 5k times and your one and only marathon, which took you more than 4 hours to run.
No, That isn't me. I did run 14:48 5K PR at 21.
JKfollower wrote:
I trained under the guidance of JK and experimented much. Nothing is proven but here is my experience:
I did mileage where I averaged 140s, 130s, 120s, all the way down to 20s.
120+ is unnecessary and I'm sure many of you agree.
The absolute most important factor is threshold runs; the high end runs and tempos. If you can master these than you can be very successful from just 50-60 miles a week.
I would say 90-105 is ideal with the mastering of the threshold. nothing wrong with reaching 120 even if its for the mental reason: "I ran 120 miles per week. I cannot blame my mileage as the excuse for my poor training / performance."
When it comes to end of the season, I had great success even at 25 miles a week. As long as you hit your workouts then your training will improve you. You can, in theory, take your easy days off or I would recommend light cross training. every workout: "what is the purpose of my workout today? How will this effort make me better?"
never be afraid to cut a workout early if you feel the workout will not make you better (maybe because you feel like crap or , simply, you're to tired.)
+1
Well said.
Well, I see no science here. I see an anecdote. The singular of data is not anecdote.
Quality over quantity is why the US dominated distance running in the 90s.
Science you say?
Your experiment of one isn't very scientific now is it?
good Art wrote:
No, That isn't me. I did run 14:48 5K PR at 21.
Nice try but no, Rich. You like directing traffic to your junk site. You've presented the Jason Karp crap before, as Richard, to declare that elite males only run around 90ish mpw. Your link to your own site is to establish that 'most runners' only need to run about 25ish mpw to be their best. You routinely pose as everything from professors to high end runners to average joes on here, runners world, other places. Your PRs are about 22ish for 5k, 44ish iirc for 10k, you're age is mid 50s, slow, so forth. What did you call yourself, 'the worlds fastest slow guy' or something like that? If nothing else, you're persistent. Did you start this thread? It wouldn't surprise me.
low miles = better wrote:
I've been running for about 10 years at a variety of distances. Have I run a good race? Yes, I have run a good race. Have I run an excellent race? Yes, I have done that.
There are a few factors that lead one's running from the excellent to the profound. The BETTER approach is: techique + quality = impact. You can't have quality workouts without good technique, and you can't have good technique unless the repitition is confirmed through quality workouts. Only those two things together will create impact, and it is within the CONTEXT of those things that you see the improvement in performance.
Case in point: I did high miles for about 4 years (90-120 mpw avg.) I would wake in the morning after having done about 4 miles, get up, shower, do another 14, 15 miles in the evening in the context of a quality workout. I would wait the entire day for the workout, only to have barely enough time to fit it in, and often having to miss it entirely, leaving out a large portion of the weekly mileage -- bringing the overall effectiveness of the mileage much lower (goal mileage 90 lowered to somewhere in the 60s).
QUALITY is much, much more important than quantity.
youre stupid
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday