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

What??? wrote:

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.

Periodization is important!!!

What you do is emphasize your aerobic base for "as long as possible."

During that time you also do one day of speed development and perhaps one or two days of speed endurance. (Fartlek, tempo, intervals, run at different speeds.) Strides are good every day.

Then with 10 weeks before a big race or peaking period you can add more hard intervals and cut mileage a bit. You keep the speed development day.

The last 4 weeks, intensity is cut across the board. You do a little "sharpening." Speed development would be less intense. Joe Newton used to insert a 2 mile run hard, then a few days later they would do 2 X mile, then a day later perhaps 1 X Mile all out. This was for 3 miles cross country. I wish I could remember exactly what he did, but the point is you increase the running speed but overall intensity and volume goes down the last 4 weeks. That is what Lydiard also preached.

It is assumed that you race the last 10 weeks. Racing is a interval day. Respect races.

The world record for 800m/week on the 20-30mi/week is faster than the world record for 800m on 120-130mi/week. Guys like Brazier or Rudisha will be much slower 800 runners on 2x the mileage.

The problem with fixating on mileage is it ignores an important power requirement in middle and long distance running. You will not find many elite 800 runners without the ability to run

jaminjaminjamin wrote:

Actually, upon re-reading, I agree - he said it would stress all three systems (?), including max speed.

Could you elaborate on how? I'd be interested in reading about this.

Every type of run uses all three systems. What type of run you do and your effort determines which system is used the most.

As for a long run improving maximum running speed that is based on the fact that being out running for a long time stresses all of the muscle fibers. Lydiard runners claimed gains in speed from the 22 mile runs they did as much as twice per week.

Modern 800-1500 runners worry about losing speed if they do the long runs. This can happen if one moves into these runs too soon before the body is ready. You can also get slower by doing 10 X 400 at 55 if that is too fast for you! Even if you complete the workout you probably will get slower because that was a maximum effort for you and because you could not recover it damaged you!

That is another reason why marathon runners should not run an all-out marathon until they have ran 60 mpw for several years before they make that attempt. Working hard does not always work. We know now that recovery is also key.

I've done my best on here.

What we as distance runners and coaches often fail to do is develop as athletes. Sprinters and field event athletes know that technique is key to their events.

We distance runners want to work so hard. However how much time did we put into being a good athlete?

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?

Is that a witty joke I don't get?

3x5k, 1 endurance session, one speed endurance, one speed. One rest day.

I don't see how you can be arguing that nothing over 100m develops your pure speed, not even 120m as that other guy posted, but a 22 mile run somehow will.

dsrunner wrote:

You will not find many elite 800 runners without the ability to run

So true

I think 800/1500 runners are afraid of long runs hurting their speed because it is a real effect. It is absolutely possible to change type 2a fibres into slow twitch fibres with long steady running.

You are preaching two very opposing theories here. One is that you need to develop a runner's speed with true sprint intervals of 60m, and the other is that speed is not harmed, maybe even helped, by long slow runs of up to 22 miles. That makes no sense.

I understand that all 'systems' are stressed with all types of running, so the fast twitch fibres will be worked with a long run, but that does not mean you are improving their ability to produce maximal force very quickly (sprinting). You are stressing them in a way that is teaching or changing muscle to be better at lasting.

two things.

guys as good as rudisha and as bad as symmonds do something resembling what's been suggested by a couple folks here--a couple months of mileage (symmonds typically 4-5 months of 50-60ish, with a "long" run of 13), followed by a substantial sharpening period of very reduced mileage and lots of speed endurance work. im not sure id say either does significant real speed work, where "speed work"=adding top end speed, as distinct from other forms of development of speed economy and speed endurance.

also, we'd probably call various periods of juantorena's training low mileage (as low as 9 miles/week?)...but he also had some bigger weeks.

https://beaconhillstriders.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Alberto-Juantorena-Training-for-400m-800m.pdf

Cuckoo-land wrote:

Depends if you see yourselves running when you turn 40.... EXCESS MILEAGE while you are young WILL CRIPPLE YOU when you turn the corner... let me say it again....

C-R-I-P-P-L-E Y-O-U

Food x thought....

Haile Gebrselassie and Gerry Lindgren are looking really crippled right now...

I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about because you're not a runner, but I have to disagree. To be able to run 800m all out efforts and train at 800m specific pace you must have the necessary background work (speed development, endurance work, mileage) for your body to consistently and optimally deliver at 800m effort.

Don't buy it wrote:

I don't see how you can be arguing that nothing over 100m develops your pure speed, not even 120m as that other guy posted, but a 22 mile run somehow will.

You don't read well, do you?

Splits Guy wrote:

To be able to run 800m all out efforts and train at 800m specific pace you must have the necessary background work (speed development, endurance work, mileage) for your body to consistently and optimally deliver at 800m effort.

False. You can adjust the intensity of workouts to any current level of fitness.

funkit wrote:

two things.

guys as good as rudisha and as bad as symmonds do something resembling what's been suggested by a couple folks here--a couple months of mileage (symmonds typically 4-5 months of 50-60ish, with a "long" run of 13), followed by a substantial sharpening period of very reduced mileage and lots of speed endurance work.

+1. Its fools gold to think you can run your best 800 without this preparation. Read through symmonds log that he published along with his stupid gum and see for yourself. All of you proponents of low mileage are just outsmarting yourselves

There is a saying in fishing never sit behind a poor fisherman you will learn nothing.

So should I follow your 'personal improvements' or more successful higher mileage runners.

You won't maximise aerobic capacity of such low mileage

Very interesting insights from quite a few people here. I certainly have had my high mileage periods, but I never felt fully recovered running 5 or 6 times per week - even when doing mostly easy mileage.

My question, however, has to do with the physiology of running - and more importantly, recovery from running.

(Clearly, high mileage plans work, as they are near-universal. I am wondering if they are the most efficient way to train, given what is known about muscle fiber fatigue and repair - even if slow twitch fibers do recover more quickly, the higher mileage plans place successive stress before they're all recovered).

(I love to run as frequently as possible, but I am not convinced this is the optimal way to improve, given the scientific base of exercise physiology.)

Ps and Qs n stuff wrote:

Any run works on all three energy systems. However if you run for a long time all of the muscle fibers have to work.

You might as well use this tripe to say lifting 20kg over your head for an hour will lead to bench pressing 200kg.

Only what recreates the extreme low pH and high rate of O2 consumption in an 800m race can be expected to result in the adaptations necessary to perform under that level of stress.

As long as you do enough race-specific workouts, your recovery will adapt you to those workouts. Nothing else you do is relevant to that. You might as well go for a long walk as a long run, or swim, or stretch, or go to a yoga class, whatever keeps you active and ready for the next workout.

Has any coach ever tried 2 or 3 workouts a week and nothing else? Are daily practices such an entrenched tradition that they can't think any other way? Is track really nothing but an after-school activity for kids?

Ran with a guy in college who ran 1:50 and 4:03 who never went over 40 miles due to injury concerns.

I think there are a lot of people who would do equally well , or nearly so, at the 800 on a high, or low mileage program, more than any other event anyway.

The 800 comes down to what are your strengths and weakness, and then figuring out which are the best to attack the most with training. One of Juantorena's obvious strengths was just that , massive strength. I don't think he dabbled in the gym . A lot of mileage would have just warn him down. Obviously, he was gifted with the endurance needs of the event too. A big guy has to be because , like I said , the mileage route to obtaining aerobic endurance would wear him down. Even if he could have been equal at the 800 on a mileage program, which is possible, he wouldn't have been the 400 gold medalist taking that route.

Of course he is an extreme example , so most people shouldn't assume they can do the 800 best by training by his example of low mileage and lifting and plyo like stuff, that I assume were pretty severe. He proves that it can be done by the right animal. Some people are at other extremes and benefit from mileage, Heavy weight lifting, too much intensity in running workouts, would lock them up, lead to running mileage dropping off a cliff and not allow them to hold on to and build their own strengths. Other athletes are somewhere in between.