Why Increasing Mileage Improves Performance

Jack,

Thanks for expressing your opinions.

"When they ask you to support your frivolous ideas with facts or research, you, unable to fulfill this request..."

Interesting that you say that. In the article I cite 23 research studies supporting my ideas. How many do I need to cite in support of my ideas before I reach the threshold for fulfilling the request to support my claims? How many research studies has Susan cited in support of her ideas? How many have you cited to support your views?

If I make a claim, it is my responsibility to support that claim. If you make a claim, the onus is on you to support your claim. For example, in my article I claim that frequency exerts a small influence on performance and cite the research I used to reach that conclusion. Susan claims that frequency is important, "...will derive FAR more benefit from training FIVE times a week than from training THREE times a week." I've asked her to support her claim.

Now, you may try to make the case that "everybody knows that so I don't have to support it". If everybody knowing something (anecdotal observation) were acceptable why is't it acceptable in scientific research? And what do you do when some pesky scientist actually studies something that "everybody already knows" and finds that the results don't match what "everybody knows"?

I appreciate your need to make this about me and to change the focus away from physiology and training, but respectfully request we stay on topic here, with our topic being physiology and training.

Let's discuss the fact that not a single person agrees with you and you are praching to a group of people who have made a studied effort to IGNORE your method and have used this to great results.

What could possibly justify your wasting time then?

BULLSHIT! All else being equal, ANY distance runner who is NOT pathologically frail will derive FAR more benefit from training FIVE times a week than from training THREE times a week. (FRIVOLOUS examples, like doing 3 miles easy five times a week vs. doing 10 miles three times a week across a range of paces - do NOT COUNT.) If you HONESTLY believe there is EVIDENCE to the contrary, PLEASE present it so we can set about TEARING it to PIECES!

Richard, please reply to this post.

You're quite adept at showing that there is an inconclusive relationship between certain assumptions, but you don't explain it. What we're asking here is for you to quote, from your website, the pertinent articles showing why "ANY distance runner who is NOT pathologically frail will not derive FAR more benefit from training FIVE times a week than from training THREE times a week."

We ask the same thing of anyone.

Shouldn't we be looking at what the best coaches/athletes are doing and learning from them,because you cant argue with there results.Anyone who does could be basing their argument on what could be argued to be POOR science !

Maybe he's friends with Jeff Galloway.

First of all, please stop calling the drivel on your site "articles," a misnomer on a par with labeling Where's Waldo? a magnum opus. Second, regardless of the force of your wishful thinking, those research studies do not in fact support your claim. Many are not remotely applicable to the topic. You've invoked studies involving cyclists, previously untrained subjects, and first-time marathoners, none of whom were asked to do a hell of a lot or persist at it for very long. You note conclusions formulated on the basis of studies as short as five weeks and involving as few as 12 people. So in spite of carefully ignoring heaps of damning evidence contradicting your inane "theories" in favor of picking and choosing studies that support (in your view, if not in fact) your ideas about training frequency, you have failed to find anything that researchers in the field would deem worthy of publication or even escape from outright ridicule.

If, from an analytical standpoint, you don't understand why these things are true, don't expect people to explain them to you - a blind, deaf llama with an open head wound would provide a more receptive, scholarly audience. (And have some class - don't ask for studies proving that Richard Gibbens' cerebrum appears to be a blind-pouych extension of his descending colon.)

I'm not going to list the names, addresses and achievements of the hundreds of runners I have personally known representing the spectrum of ability and experience levels who have realized great improvements in their racing by increasing their workload beyond three or four runs a week. Countless others on this forum could do the same. Again, you know this - the introduction to your latest "article" attests to the fact that huge numbers of runners reprt improving after increasing their mileages. I don't need to sink to your level to demonstrate just how far down the scale of reason and truth it lies, and if you're going to claim a victory here by repeating the fact that I'm not coughing up NEJM abstracts, that's fine; you've been talking mainly to yourself for what seems to be a long time, so why quit now?

Right - this isn't about Richard Gibbens trying to get his name out there by positioning himself as a justly rebellious visionary, it's about an earnest search for the truth. Also, you're ineffectual as a demagogue - your use of "our" and the royal "we" isn't fooling anyone, as you have little to no visible support here.

You're no vox populi currentes, Richard. Skepticism and radicalism do not a just cause make. You're a vocal guy with a Web site, a tengential interest in running, and some basic schooling in physiology, most of which you have apparently discarded or forgotten. That's it. You're not even a screwball, more like a caricature of one.

Otra vez, Jack Van Impe telling it like it is.

I have to imagine Richard's idol is Jeff Galloway, but he will not be able to compete.

Joe,

There is a body of research that I have used in formulating my beliefs about the role frequency plays in performance. I've taken the time and effort to write extensively about it, have posted it to my web site, and have provided a link so that anyone who wishes may review it. Here is the link again -

http://www.powerrunning.com/Training/Why%20Increasing%20Mileage%20Improves%20Performance%20part%201.htm

There is a section in part 1 devoted exclusively to discussing frequency (see case 3).

If you want to know the research that supports my view, it's there. All you need do is go read it.

Jack,

Are you still talking about me?

You really wrote a lot there. For clarity sake I'm going to sum up your points.

You basically said:

1. The research I cite is all invalid.

2. There is anecdotal evidence proving me wrong.

3. You insult me.

That about right?

If you feel the need to keep making those same points over and over, please feel free to do so.

If you are satisfied now that you've made the above points, maybe you could go to the next step. I recommend you write an article and show how every study that doesn't agree with your point of view is invalid.

Chat with you later,

As a scientist, I'll say this first hand. Scientists are impatient. They are NOT going to conduct a 2, 3, or 4 year research project to see how high mileage works vs. low mileage/high intensity. They want studies to conclude in 6 months and you cannot do that here.

Second thing, just because there aren't refereed SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLES on the topic doesn't mean it's not true or not supported. WHO THE HELL MADE A RULE THAT SAID THAT IF IT'S NOT SCIENTIFICALLY SUPPORTED, IT ISN'T SUPPORTED?? Please, you misunderstand science.

Richard,

Please give a few examples of world class athletes past/present that train the way you preach and you may have a case. I can tell you of many slow joggers that train the way you think is correct, but can't think of any world class athletes.

Why doesn't everyone honestly just let this rest?

This moron has another thread going on run-insight and no one agrees with him there.

He will not be convinced of simple reason and logic.

The only thing Richard acknowledges are studies of 5 people who improved from being couch potatoes to 55 min. 10K runners on 15 miles per week, and everyone else should do the same.

"If you feel the need to keep making those same points over and over, please feel free to do"

This from a guy who's been trying to ram the same foolishness ("Run less, get faster") in virtually unchanged form down people's throats for several years now. You're even thoughter than I dumbed.

Richard_, it cannot possibly have escaped even your attention that since day one of your hapless online crusade, virtually no one has given your verbal excrement the faintest whiff of credence - especially those of us who have actually studied human physiology as more than a hobby, served as coaches, trained our bodies seriously, or all of the above. Are you so confident in your skills, so grandiose, that you've truly managed to convince yourself it's the 99% of the world that thinks you're a flake that's in error and not you? Get on some antipsychotic meds if that's the case.

a,

The only examples of world class athletes that I'm aware of that trained with relatively low mileage are posted on the results section of my web site.

Sometimes a runner might come to a cross roads in his/her life. A person might find themselves increasing their mileage more and more. Eventually this person might get injured. This person might love the sport of running very much. Perhaps some people might find it necessary to consider running less mileage and still be able to compete instead running a lot of miles chasing un-attainable perfection. I chased un-attainable perfection and I found that I did run faster, I was on the brink of smashing my old pr. I ran a 3 second 5K PR in my first 5K of the season while running 75 mpw and no speedwork beyond thresholds and tempos twice a week. I ran over 30 seconds slower today, but at least I know I can sleep tonight without having to cringe in pain because of shin pain, and I can also be comforted knowing that the lack of pain isn't due to ice and pain killers. I took about 6 weeks off. I had visible bruises on my shins, yet I didn't have stress fractures, the trainers told me if I kept training the way I was, I was definately going to get stress fractures in a very short amount of time. During these weeks off, I biked swam and lifted weights. I actually had fun cross training, yet I couldn't get running out of my mind. Sometimes my shins hurt after a hard bike ride or swim. I went from barely swimming one lap to being able to swim more then 30 without much trouble.

Don't take running for granted but don't kill yourself.

Richard_ wrote:

The only examples of world class athletes that I'm aware of that trained with relatively low mileage are posted on the results section of my web site.

Great. Rather than looking at the middle of that bell curve you love referencing so much, you use some of the most extreme statistical outliers in the history of running in order to "prove" your point. Using that logica, we should all tell our kids enrolled at Ivy League schools to drop out and start up a computer company -- this is a "proven" way to make $60 billion. Or we can tell our sons aspiring to play in the NBA that a 45% to 50% free-throw percentage is sufficient to make the grade, since Shaq has been a superstar at that level of accuracy for over a decade. Shit, it must be a good idea to get wasted the night before facing a major-league line-up, since David Wells tossed a perfect game under those conditions.

Also, Walter George, Roger Bannister et al., while great athletes, would not be world-class today and it was pointed out in another thread that your invoking the South African runners was ignorant at best and intentionally misleading at worst. Or did Yawa pack 80 miles of running into three days every week?

In keeping with the spirit of others' posts, I suggest you rustle up about ten thousand healthy young volunteers, train all of them in any way you like but with an upper limit of 21 km/week, and see how many of them are running 49 minutes and change for 10 miles within two years. Then we'll talk training efficacy.

Sidenote here:

anyone else think Jack Van Impe could be Kevin Beck??

MoPac,

Thanks for expressing your opinion. I'm curious, how would you answer this question - what world class athletes past/present have ever trained with relatively low weekly mileage?

You can read into research what you like.

These days most research is tainted by Dollars I.e. Who is paying the Bills.

I train on what I think Benefits me best.If that means lots of slow miles, so be it.

I maintain that elites run better than the rest of us because they do not have to work 40 hours a week. I'm sure if someone wants to come up with a Fully Financed study to prove this the "scientists" will agree with this.(B/s that it is)

Thank heaven for people like Lydiard, Who's motivation was to improve runners as opposed to selling some shit product

or coming up with some alternate "conclusion" to get some more funding.