what is the average maximum mileage that an average person can handle without injuries?

Zero.

Every runner will get injured at some time

There's a "bathtub" curve showing that injury rates are highest for people who run very low mileage and very high mileage.

There is no such number. Just listen to your body and build or reduce mileage accordingly to avoid injury.

I think an average healthy person could probably run quite high mileage without injury if they built it up incredibly slowly. Like, spent a year going from 0 to 20 mpw then spent each year adding 5 more miles to the weekly total, which would involve adding 0.0961538 miles per week, or about 169.22 yards.

If that person was 20 upon starting, they would be reaching 100mpw in their late 30s.

You run high mileage to NOT be average. Mileage is low-impact activity. It isn't the primary cause of injury anyway.

I jumped from 10 to 60mpw over the course of a couple of weeks without any issues.

n=1

malmo wrote:

You run high mileage to NOT be average. Mileage is low-impact activity. It isn't the primary cause of injury anyway.

Huh? Running is a high-impact activity in itself, however slowly you run.

And it is well known that volume, rather than intensity, is more related to occurrence of injuries.

Sledge_hammer wrote:

malmo wrote:

You run high mileage to NOT be average. Mileage is low-impact activity. It isn't the primary cause of injury anyway.

Huh? Running is a high-impact activity in itself, however slowly you run.

And it is well known that volume, rather than intensity, is more related to occurrence of injuries.

I don't think malmo needs a lecture on injury free mileage building?

run by feel wrote:

I don't think malmo needs a lecture on injury free mileage building?

Your sentence is a statement, not a question. The question mark at the end makes no sense.

I am not lecturing him. I merely stated facts.

Sledge_hammer wrote:

malmo wrote:

You run high mileage to NOT be average. Mileage is low-impact activity. It isn't the primary cause of injury anyway.

Huh? 1) Running is a high-impact activity in itself, however slowly you run.

2) And it is well known that volume, rather than intensity, is more related to occurrence of injuries.

Neither of your statements is true, and Renato agrees with me.

The question mark was intentional. I'm leaving the option open for the poster to argue with me and tell me I'm wrong.

I'm competitive like that.

This: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2818115

run by feel wrote:

The question mark was intentional. I'm leaving the option open for the poster to argue with me and tell me I'm wrong.

I'm competitive like that.

So if you used a period at the end of the sentence, the option for the poster to argue with you is not open? The statement you made would be the same, wouldn't it?

Or are you thinking that by using a random, incorrectly-placed question mark you are showing your lack of understanding primary school grammar, and therefore likely easier to make an argument against due to general ignorance?

Sledge_hammer wrote:

malmo wrote:

You run high mileage to NOT be average. Mileage is low-impact activity. It isn't the primary cause of injury anyway.

Huh? Running is a high-impact activity in itself, however slowly you run.

And it is well known that volume, rather than intensity, is more related to occurrence of injuries.

When I was doing fast interval training, it didn't feel high impact, it felt smooth and controlled.

When I was running lotsa miles I never got injured. It just never happened cuz I did em right. And I mixed speed, interval training, decent mileage and racing a lot. If you put all together in the right way, that helps prevent injury.

malmo wrote:

Sledge_hammer wrote:

Huh? 1) Running is a high-impact activity in itself, however slowly you run.

2) And it is well known that volume, rather than intensity, is more related to occurrence of injuries.

Neither of your statements is true, and Renato agrees with me.

1) If running isn't high-impact, I don't know what is.

2)

run by feel wrote:

Sledge_hammer wrote:

Huh? Running is a high-impact activity in itself, however slowly you run.

And it is well known that volume, rather than intensity, is more related to occurrence of injuries.

When I was doing fast interval training, it didn't feel high impact, it felt smooth and controlled.

When I was running lotsa miles I never got injured. It just never happened cuz I did em right. And I mixed speed, interval training, decent mileage and racing a lot. If you put all together in the right way, that helps prevent injury.

What you said doesn't contradict with my statement.

Sledge_hammer wrote:

Neither of your statements is true, and Renato agrees with me.

1) If running isn't high-impact, I don't know what is.

[/quote]

An admission of ignorance is a good place to start.

I think the Canova quote malmo alluded to was in a thread during the last 2 months. Someone must have archived his threads.

less_than_40 MPW wrote:

This:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2818115

That study is almost 30 years old. Do you have anything from this century?