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

As an 800/mile type I am biased, but please keep in mind that research seems to keep finding higher and higher percentages of the aerobic (as opposed to the anaerobic) contribution to the 800.

I had a similar 400 PR to another poster (49-50 range) but did run significant mileage before track season (XC and its base period in which I got up into the 70s and then back up to 60 or so between XC and indoor). I ended up just under 1:50. It's tough to compare between different people, but I wonder if the extra mileage made the difference (I think he said he ran 1:51 or 1:52 off of low mileage). Yes, my mileage definitely dropped down during the season into the 40s or lower.

We were an 800 m. powerhouse school, and there were two approaches to the training (low mileage 800 guys and the "middle distance" (800/mile) guys). The low mileage guys still put in a base. They tended to do their mileage more slowly. Their workouts during the season were often similar to ours (I'd honestly have to look back to see the differences) and occasionally, especially towards the end of the season we would work out together as one group. I would have to ask him, but one of our lower mileage guys (a 1:45 man) I believe had a higher mileage background in his high school days. I think he could probably split 46 point, though, as well.

There are definitely two different approaches to 800 training. I will mention that my racing would go off a cliff soon after the indoor season. I would get to a certain point in a race (about 500 into an 800 or about 1200 into a 1500) and just feel like I didn't have anything more. I am not sure exactly what overtraining feels like (someone please tell me if this is what it feels like!) but in retrospect I wonder if that is what it was. I tended to do my easy days somewhat quick, and definitely a lot faster than the low mileage guys whose times did not end up going off a cliff. I wonder if the speed endurance training was too "dense" for my particular physiological makeup as well. Apparently some people just handle certain workloads differently than others.

Also, check out the interesting chart at the bottom of this page on the 400 m. PR to 800 m. pace differential for various elites:

http://www.serpentine.org.uk/pages/advice_frank52.html

If you can only race 30min for 8K you have no business training that way on your recovery days

Middle distance BS haha wrote:

If you can only race 30min for 8K you have no business training that way on your recovery days

I just prescribed what Clarke did, and Lydiard runners often did (ran a lot runs around marathon pace). Less talented runners will need more easy/recovery days.

1:52 and 49.9r

And I know you're faster, but i'm honestly not very talented. Of course I'm "talented" in the fact that I can break 1:53 but my high school 800m PR was 2:15 and my PR my junior year of college was 2:03, before I got serious and ran 1:52 my senior year. This was last year, and I'm going to see if I can apply most of the same training principles (along with some new ones) to see if I can go even faster. The most difficult part will be training without a team.

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

800ftw. wrote:

What is your PB off 70mpw? Just curious as people here are telling me to run more miles.

1:52 and 49.9r

And I know you're faster, but i'm honestly not very talented. Of course I'm "talented" in the fact that I can break 1:53 but my high school 800m PR was 2:15 and my PR my junior year of college was 2:03, before I got serious and ran 1:52 my senior year. This was last year, and I'm going to see if I can apply most of the same training principles (along with some new ones) to see if I can go even faster. The most difficult part will be training without a team.

And this was with 70mpw over the summer, and then occasionally during XC season and occasionally in December. Otherwise I was 60mpw until the end of indoor. Then back up to 60mpw for a few weeks then I stayed at ~45mpw throughout outdoor.

A guy i train with ran 22.5 46.8 ans 1.48.1 (also 1.48.2 indoors) off about 5-10miles a week.

20-30 min run in the forrest and two intervals a week (quite randomly) without warmup (400m jog 2-3 sprint striders)

He also got terribly unrthodox running form and also really heavy 80kg and 185cm .

And he s not even fast sprint wise (his 200m pb very week compared to his 400m)

dont know what to think wrote:

A guy i train with ran 22.5 46.8 ans 1.48.1 (also 1.48.2 indoors) off about 5-10miles a week.

20-30 min run in the forrest and two intervals a week (quite randomly) without warmup (400m jog 2-3 sprint striders)

He also got terribly unrthodox running form and also really heavy 80kg and 185cm .

And he s not even fast sprint wise (his 200m pb very week compared to his 400m)

I think it's bogus. C'mon man...a 6-1, 176 pounder running 1:48's off of 5-10 miles a week and 20-30 minute long run? Really - what a story. ?

A high mileage 800m runner could max out at 40 miles in the offseason. Never straying too far from speed with tempos, and longer, quick over-distance repeats, and hills would serve the high mileage 800m runner well. Four quick workouts a week with short distance, relatively quick runs on the recovery days is far better than weeks of junk miles and slow running.

gottabethatguy wrote:

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

Learn to spell

hatetobethatguy wrote:

gottabethatguy wrote:

moran

Learn to spell

It's a college kid...give him a break.

Peace tell can cease wrote:

I am neither a professional coach nor runner, but I advocate interval and time trial workouts only for middle distance races; that is, zero mileage. Over the last decade a number of studies have shown this approach produces metabolic benefits at least equal to mileage. This would translate into not track workouts every day, but maybe 1-3 days a week with rest days between. I believe the best results would occur training no more than twice per week.

Training no more than twice per week? Please name one successful athlete that trains on two days per week?

Not sure is Ps and Qs n stuff is still on the board.

Do you realize you got the stuff about pH backwards?

I thought "pleasantly tired" was how Lydiard said you were supposed to feel after aerobic running, not interval training.

I have always been running

speed

anaerobic

rest or rest after strenght

strenght

aerobic endurance

endurance

easy

That way I am training with 2 intensity tops, gets some milage and makes the body ready for the most injury prone workout. More emphasis on the endurance "block" early and the anaerobic later

Better economy at slower paces doesn't mean better economy at race pace, and can even make it worse. Jogging for strength/resilience? What a joke. Do drills, plyos and weights for the kind of strength that matters in the 800.

It. Does. Not. When will this stupid myth die? Marathon pace does not stress the CV system, it only makes it adapt to maintaining a modest output for a long time. That is not the aerobic capacity an 800 runner needs.

Argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority are the usual last resort to justify the stone-age training methods still in use. Everyone does it, sure. But they're wrong. Athletics, phys ed, and coaching don't typically attract the brightest people.

Here is the reason for periodization: weather. It's too cold in winter to run very fast, and it's the offseason, not the time for serious training.