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

sub 2:00 on just two track sessions a week, i.e probably less than 5 mpw, is doable

Turbogeezer wrote:

The best is to have extended periods of mileage/aerobic development, and shorter periods with much reduced mileage and focused speed development,

This guy gets it.

For example one of the best years I ever had running was about 3 months of 60mpw with some tempo interval work once every two weeks. Then I did about 3-4 months of 35-40mpw of brutal intervals, tempos, and long slow runs.

miaoooooooow wrote:

sub 2:00 on just two track sessions a week, i.e probably less than 5 mpw, is doable

It is very doable, just like 1:50 off less than 15.

For an elite athlete that focuses entirely on the 800m, no more than 50mpw is required in my opinion.

C'mon guys, this doesn't prove anything other than that you have talent. David Rudisha would no doubt break 2 on 5 mpw, but he wouldn't run 1:41. The question is, can you maximize your 800 potential on low mileage? Maybe on 30 mpw. Definitely not on 5 mpw.

Separately, I'll throw out an anecdotal example. A review of HS 4x800 relay times from the low mileage era of the early to mid 90's would show that teams were running times competitive to later eras when high mileage became popular. For distances above 800, this is certainly not the case.

800ftw. wrote:

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.

What did you do the other 4 days of the week?

I haven't read the whole thread so forgive if repeating but I've heard several coaches of young women/HS girls who won't let their 800 athletes run more than say 25 miles. the argument is that they can get 90% of fitness from 25 miles/week but run a big risk of injury if they run more.

better to be 20 mpw undertrained than 1 mile per week overtrained.

but that's not exactly what the OP is asking I know.

In the early 2000's, I coached for a year with Kathy Rounds (1997 US Champ at 800m). She said that she would run an average of 23-25 miles per week. During the early part of the season, a little higher than that to build strength and less than that while competing. She did a lot of speed development and form work. Everything on the track was quality.

Here coach while running in the 90's was Randy Huntington, who also coached Mike Powell when he set the world record in the long jump. That may explain some of the more sprinter type work Kathy did during that time.

If I could go back in time, I would drop mileage from 60mpw to about 30mpw or so with a ton of supplemental aerobic work. Trying to grind out the mileage kind of killed my running. Some people's bodies just don't respond well I think. Doesn't mean they can't run fast as heck.

both rest and core work are very productive

bigtool05 wrote:

800ftw. wrote:

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.

What did you do the other 4 days of the week?

[quote]

Idk why only the 'quote' posted. Letsrun is having some issues today, it seems.

What I tried to say was, Johnny Gray has said that Solomon does 70-80mpw in the base phase, and I think it is lazy not to do decent mileage. Certainly not all year round, as this would make the tough pace workouts even tougher, but there's certainly room for higher mileage, even for 400/800 guy.

I'm not very talented, but I would be no where without higher mileage.

My freshman year of college I ran the 1500, 800, 4x4 at most meets, alternating between 800 and 1500 sometimes. I had decent strength (as a mediocre athlete) with my low 28min 8k from the XC season prior. We were doing ~ 20-30 miles a week for training, with some form of speed 3-4 days a week and I SUCKED. Averaged 2:08 for 800m with 54-55 second 4x4 splits and I suffered bad on the last lap of my 1500's. Ended with a PR of 4:25.

Fast forward to my senior year when I decided to get serious (starting in the summer) I ran doubles and steady state/tempos all the time. Consistent 70mpw up until mid way through indoor season. I ran a solo 1:58 for my first indoor meet and it was a breeze. Ended the season with a 1:52 for 800m and a 49.9 relay split.

I'm in no way bragging. I know I'm not all that good. All I'm saying is that I would have never amounted to what I did for the 800m without a lot of mileage and tempo work. During season we were hitting pretty hard intervals and tempos often and I was only doing ~45mpw at that point, but I feel like I set myself up to be able to handle the intense workloads by doing higher mileage and such before. Obviously you should never neglect your speed, but I think that working up to higher mileage and periodizing correctly is the smart way to go, at least for most.

"Finally, after another seven-minute break, Asbel (Kiprop) showed off his speed. He ran four 200s, on only 50 seconds rest, in 23 seconds each."

This was taken from a story about Asbel Kiprop before the 2016 Olympics. Jamin and I agree that running repeat 200s in 23 seconds "showed," speed. However doing such a workout does not develop speed. What it does is continue building speed endurance.

I think Jamin would agree with me that one will improve the fastest by doing hard interval training but that you do not reach your ultimate peak that way. The reason is that the 1500 is at least 50% Aerobic. So build your base for as long as you can, develop speed along the way, then with 10 weeks before the big race you can begin intensifying interval training.

(I think you do some intervals, fartlek, or tempo runs all year long but it's not the focus until 10 weeks to go.)

There are three energy systems. All runs use all three, but 6 X 80 and shorter emphasizes the first energy system. It's not just speed we are talking about here but energy. A football team could do lots of 200s but they would not have developed their most important energy system!

It's time to open your exercise physiology books. But there is no danger that you will do that because you are not good at 6 X 80. You just want to do your tempo runs and 400 meter repeats.

I would take a look at Frank Horwill's stuff - lots of it knocking about online and I expect quite a few threads on LR too. In my experience you can run fast off low volume/high intensity training but it's not sustainable - I kept getting injured

What??? wrote:

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?

Anything longer than 100 meters is probably working on speed endurance which is important to any runner. Remember even Carl Lewis slowed down after about 80 meters in his world record 100 meter races.

That is why most D1 schools and many high schools have their kids do a lot of 5 X 30/5 X50/5 X 70, etc. type work. I'm talking about sprinters here, but 2:04 marathoner Ryan Hall did a similar type workout one day per week his entire high school to college career. This is another way to improve that many runners miss because they refuse to listen.

In addition there is an energy system called the alactic system which is used for power sports such as football, baseball, basketball, and soccer where you must be trained for repeated bursts of less than 5 seconds.

All three systems are important and u use all three every time you run. Sure speed endurance is the final push towards your PR. But if you do not work on the Alactic system you are missing some of your cylinders dear.

Think about how that could help ya when you pass someone or have to meet someone's surge.

reocovering troll wrote:

C'mon guys, this doesn't prove anything other than that you have talent. David Rudisha would no doubt break 2 on 5 mpw, but he wouldn't run 1:41. The question is, can you maximize your 800 potential on low mileage? Maybe on 30 mpw. Definitely not on 5 mpw.

Separately, I'll throw out an anecdotal example. A review of HS 4x800 relay times from the low mileage era of the early to mid 90's would show that teams were running times competitive to later eras when high mileage became popular. For distances above 800, this is certainly not the case.

What was the makeup of those miles? If we only say, "I ran 80 mpw and later found that 30 mpw was better," we really are not saying a whole lot.

Running multiple speeds in training will prevent injuries, but that is only one part of the picture. You probably need to callous the body as well for anything you try to do.

Htgh wrote:

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.

A runner must also be an athlete. Living was tough in Bannister's era. That alone would keep him in better shape than a lot of us are now. He probably had to run to catch street cars and certainly did not count that as training. What did he do in his development years? That also made him the athlete he was.

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

Bingo...not all is known about how anyone trained.

800ftw. wrote:

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.

Any run works on all three energy systems. However if you run for a long time all of the muscle fibers have to work. So in that sense some of Lydiard runners have claimed to have actually improved from the weekly or twice weekly 22 mile runs which few 800-1500 runners would think rational to do today. (You must build up to a 22 mile run, I'm not saying it's the golden grail to a sub 2:00 800 meter run! Proper recovery must still be heeded and on we go beyond 1 million pages)