Are there any serious physiology-based advocates of running VERY low mileage (800)?

I have no answer but I'd imagine the argument could be made for 20-30mpw for the 800, NOT the mile. Two very different events. And even at that, you'd have to have some major 400 speed or some good talent in general to be successful off of really low mileage

Bannister was low mileage wasn't he?

If you do low mileage, you either need to have very fast top speed or nearly all of your training needs to be at race pace and tempo.

From what I remember (could be wrong), he only logged his workouts and faster stuff, not the basic mileage and stuff. And we all know today that he likely would have been much faster with today's training programs and higher mileage. He was talented and did the speed work and he ran what is a pretty average time for most good D1 programs

My weekly mileage the year I ran 1:51 was something like 12mpw including all sessions.

I used to run 3 5k runs a week, a session of something like 6x800m for endurance and two faster sessions, one 800m pace with very short recovery and one with long recovery and very fast reps (like 6 x 120m in 14s)

I ran 1:51.1 off this training and I know I could have gone faster in July/August from my training but I got injured (Achilles). I won the race with a last 100m sprint and the guys I beat had both run 1:49 and 1:50.

That's the point...you got injured (Achilles).

There is a top high school coach who has sent kids on to college who have had great success. He claims to be a low mileage program. He explained to me that he makes sure his kids run multiple paces in practice, as this also prevents injuries, unlike in the 1970s when many doing LSD 120 mpw were getting injured.

If you run the same speed you are emphasizing how the muscles work in the same fashion over and over again. Putting in some slower and faster stuff will give the muscles a rest because you are emphasizing muscles in a different way.

I prefer not to use the term, "you are using different muscles when you run fast," because that's not really true. Perhaps my quads and hammies come more into play when I am sprinting as opposed to jogging, but I always use all of my muscles when running!

This is also a plug for Igloi/Schul training systems if you want to find out what that is.

There is a danger in doing hard interval training all year long unless you have recovery. The best way to recover seems to be long slow runs the day after the hard efforts.

The OP mentions 6 X 120 as being "very fast reps in 14 secs." That is speed endurance not speed development. Speed development should be done one day per week all year long because that is also an important energy system. Most distance runners want to ignore that one because they are not good at it.

Speed development would be doing something like 6 X 60, skipping rope, plyometrics. It could be broken 200s where you emphasize acceleration, classic running form, and the mental aspects of running. Talk to good sprint coaches about this. Like any other training you must build up to it and have a recovery day!!!

However the long run puts the tiger in the cat because if it is long enough it will stress all three systems pretty well even the first system of speed development. This is supported by research.

You can run 20 mpw but that's not the best way to do it in the long term.

I got injured because I always get injured. Tried all kinds of training including longer and slower, I just get injured. I think I have biomechanical issues stemming from an old ankle sprain.

I think 6x120 with 4/5 minutes is very fast for a 150 800m runner. Going through 100m in 11.5ish is a fair pace.

I don't think long slow distance improves speed but each to their own.

This training worked for me anyway. I was 20 at the time. You can definitely run decent times off very low mileage as the OP asked.

ultralowrunner wrote:

Running is taxing, even when performed at the lightest of paces. One could make a substantial physiological argument for training with much lower overall mileage (eg. < 30) for target distances of 800-mile. I am wondering if anyone here is aware of any such advocates. It seems even Seb Coe, whose workouts emphasized quality, had his high mileage periods. Personally, my most rapid improvements have come during periods of very low mileage, with sufficient rest between successive workouts - I only ran when fully refreshed. I anticipate some dismissive or insulting remarks as replies, but please answer respectfully, as this is a genuine question.

moran

The best is to have extended periods of mileage/aerobic development, and shorter periods with much reduced mileage and focused speed development. The problem is most coaches and athletes are at best competent in one phase but not the other, hence the "I always get injured on xxx training".

Alberto Juantorena

I ran a 2:00.23 my freshman year off of

Coachb wrote:

Alberto Juantorena

Actually ran a lot.

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

From what I remember (could be wrong), he only logged his workouts and faster stuff, not the basic mileage and stuff. And we all know today that he likely would have been much faster with today's training programs and higher mileage. He was talented and did the speed work and he ran what is a pretty average time for most good D1 programs

We do not know that he would have been faster. More but slower is not necessarily better than less but faster. Also, sub4 is not an average time for most good d1 programs. It is an exceptional time.

The key factor for me during my training was getting 5 quality sessions a week.

At Oregon in the mid 1980s the supplemental training was on your own. For me it was recovery runs of maybe five miles. The 5 sessions did not include a long run. Some guys did a long run and others just did an easy run on Sundays so they could attempt to be ready for the Tuesday doubles.

Taking this into consideration my point is, recovery is more important combined with the multi pace quality workouts, then it is to reach some random weekly mileage amount.

5 quality sessions per week would land you in the 30 miles per week. Add the easy recovery runs and you would end up with maybe 45 per week.

,moranic points wrote:

Alberto Juantorena

Actually ran a lot.

Such as?

There was an excellent new peer reviewed study titled "Lazy runners trying to rationalize not running a lot ". You should look that up.

Study finder wrote:

There was an excellent new peer reviewed study titled "Lazy runners trying to rationalize not running a lot ". You should look that up.

Thank you all for the replies thus far - I look forward to reading more.

You think that's kids 120m reps in 14 seconds aren't developing his speed, but a long slow run will?

What cuckoo planet are you from?

I think he was referring to the concept that raw speedwork is that which is designed to tax the creatine phosphate/ATP system (7-8s of 95-100% effort). Sure you'll get SOME raw speedwork from 120s, but you're better off doing 7-8s reps (such as he mentioned) to optimally work maximal speed.

jaminjaminjamin wrote:

I think he was referring to the concept that raw speedwork is that which is designed to tax the creatine phosphate/ATP system (7-8s of 95-100% effort). Sure you'll get SOME raw speedwork from 120s, but you're better off doing 7-8s reps (such as he mentioned) to optimally work maximal speed.

He did post quite clearly that a long run will increase speed development.

How useful is raw speedwork for an 800m runner anyway? 60m reps and a long run doesn't sound like a good way to train for the 800m to me. I'd give the 120s to my athletes any day.