Only real benefit of high mileage = weight loss/maintenance?

We can't really have this discussion unless we define some terms. What we mean by high, low, medium mileage. Also, we need to know how fast our "mileage" is and what distance we're training for.

It seems unlikely, based on our best knowledge, that running at under 60% of vo2max is going to produce any significant aerobic adaptations. Pretty much everyone acknowledges this. Canova says running under 90% of marathon pace is only useful for "regeneration" and getting the weekly total up. Daniels has easy paces that a lot of people find quite fast, definitely 60% or more. Vigil likewise. Coe and Martin. Salazar. And on.

For inexperienced runners, this isn't an issue. They will typically be doing their easy runs 60%, because they are undeveloped and it doesn't take much to stress their aerobic system. But a lot of decently trained runners are doing a significant portion of their easy miles at under 60%. The question for these runners is whether there's any purpose to those miles. I can think of four: Weight maintenance is a major benefit, as the OP noted. It's also likely that the additional light exercise helps to improve your body's hormonal profile (short easy runs produce HGH, contrary to what was once thought). For marathoners specifically, I think that a the repetitive eccentric contractions of high mileage help to produce structural changes that stave off muscle fatigue in the late stages of the race. Finally, for all runners, when you adapt to higher mileage, even if a lot of it's easy, you are then able to drop your mileage a certain percentage and do a higher quantity of quality. That allows people to get more out of their talent. For instance, some top marathoners never go over 13 miles at MP, and others do 20 or more in training. The latter runners have probably done a lot more work to prepare for that kind of effort so that it will actually be a useful stimulus and not just something that destroys them.

I think we have a bit of an issue now where a common, traditional running practice (grouping all runs into either "workouts" or easy mileage) is suddenly getting support from some questionable contemporary research about polarized training, which is causing people to lose sight of the significance of in-between training. People always say that if you run too fast on your "easy days" then you won't be able to perform on your hard days. But that's circular reasoning because you start from the premise that the day was supposed to be easy. What if it isn't?

My approach has been to periodize my moderate-paced running. So early in a training cycle, I run a lot of my non-workout mileage at a pretty solid clip (mid to low sixes for a 2:30 guy, after a few miles of easing into it). This doesn't leave me too beat-up for my workouts, because my workouts are easier at this stage of the cycle. As I get closer to key competitions, the quality days get harder and harder, and in order to be ready for them, it becomes necessary to go easier and easier on other days. I've found that this always brings me to a pretty good peak, but it also means that I end up cannibalizing some of my base, and it's necessary to go back to easier workouts and a lot of moderate running before I can make a similar push again.

awesome blossom wrote:

I can't think of anything in life where you benefit from doing the same thing over and over again at a low effort level of activity.

How about pro golfers who spend countless hours practicing putting and chipping? I would contend this is a 'low effort level' activity. I'm betting they also don't swing their irons as hard as possible every shot on the range either.

With regard to weight loss, anecdotally I have found any running helps me drop and maintain weight, but hard workouts tend to do better than long/slow for me at dropping weight quickly (all else being equal).

"Significant aerobic adaptions" just words dude. What we really want is more efficiency. So we run more at every pace to achieve this.

There are other things to consider. Like the OP I lost a few pounds recently by doing more and eating slightly less. But, how to take advantage of that lower body fat? I consciously ran my usual tempo/fartlek, (lots of efforts at various paces and distances, perhaps templek or fartlo would be a better term) with a longer stride. Impossible to do when I was those few pounds heavier.

So my reductive thinking hypothesis is just that - learn how to improve stride length over a given distance. Stride rate will naturally increase very slightly too.

VO2 max is a red herring which is a big cultural difference between East Africans and rich countries. They don't think about what lab geeks say. If you do it is not good for your confidence or understanding of biomechanics or even bioenergetics because it's a minefield of misinformation.

Are there really structural changes from adapting to eccentric contractions as you say? Or are we just avoiding injury by learning how much is too much and learning to respond to the stress signals better?

awesome blossom wrote:

Ok, I understand the benefits of building your mileage if you're a beginner and your body just isn't adapted to running, but I can't think of anything in life where you benefit from doing the same thing over and over again at a low effort level of activity. Is the real benefit of high mileage weight loss/management?

Long slow distance = rapid weight loss right? Doing three, ten mile runs a week > six five mile runs? This has definitely been the case for me.

Someone obviously has never read a book on training methodology.

"Just words" that you understood as clearly referring to once category of training benefits as opposed to another (efficiency).

I agree that running economy is key as it's something that continues to improve with training long after aerobic adaptations have leveled off. What's not at all clear is whether running slow has major benefits for running economy. At paces below 60% of vo2max, you're stride is very different. I also agree that vo2max isn't something that runners should bother thinking about. You could just as easily go by heart rate, perceived exertion, or pace (as determined by your PR curve) to ensure that you're working hard enough.

As for stride length, that obviously gets better as runners get faster. But again, it's not clear the best way to do that, but we do know that consciously trying to increase stride length is a recipe for disaster.

Regarding structural changes from eccentric contractions, that's very easy to observe with muscle biopsies, and it also corresponds with the experience of every high level marathoner and coach I've ever spoken to. Even "low mileage" marathoners run pretty high mileage.

In the words of John L. Parker/Frank Shorter: You may not believe in mileage, but you sure as sh*t run mileage. With that in mind, picture a training block for say a 5k/10k runner. You would probably say your ideal workout distance to race 6 miles is probably a workout of 8 miles (on average). Now if you want a workout with 7 to 8 miles of quality work, with 2 miles to warmup, and maybe conservatively a mile to cooldown, you're looking at a 10 mile day on the short end, and a possible 13 miles day on the long end. Just for the workout. Now picture you want to workout twice a week. That's 25 miles of your week already. And you certainly don't want your workout runs to be the longest runs you're doing in your week, because you'll have a hard time making it through a 10 mile workout day if you only ever run 6 or 7 miles on easy days. So between two workouts and a long run, you're already past your classic bullsh*t "30 MPW is all I need to be a champion" mentality, because you just hit your 30 miles (at least) in 3 days. Now you talking about filling in your easy days around those 3 quality days, and even if you're doing the minimum 45 minute run on your easy day (which is like collegiate 400m runner level easy day), you're going to be at 30-35 miles of quality, and 25 miles of recovery, which, coincidentally is where you'll find most college freshman running. Adding to those easy days is a logical way to make those long workouts more manageable, until you hit about 70 mpw, and then you can start to get into the debate of whether it makes sense to do 70 mpw fast or 100 mpw a little slower (but still fast). The misconception is that this "Long slow distance" is actually slow. There's an interview floating around the internet with Salazar talking about Galen's easy runs, and how uncomfortably fast they are. Recovery runs are supposed to be fast. That's how you get fit. Now quit whining about how you think you should be running less mileage but also can't break 16 in a 5k.

awesome blossom wrote:

Ok, I understand the benefits of building your mileage if you're a beginner and your body just isn't adapted to running, but I can't think of anything in life where you benefit from doing the same thing over and over again at a low effort level of activity. Is the real benefit of high mileage weight loss/management?

Long slow distance = rapid weight loss right? Doing three, ten mile runs a week > six five mile runs? This has definitely been the case for me.

LRC consensus is that high mileage is the only way to success, no matter the type of event you're training for and if you're a responder to that type of training. Not everyone has the talent to run in the olympics so i question if it make sense to suggest to everyone to go out, run 100mpw and live like a monk only to reach a decent PR...

Anyway there are different success stories:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=907089

Old mantra wrote:

LRC consensus is that high mileage is the only way to success, no matter the type of event you're training for and if you're a responder to that type of training. Not everyone has the talent to run in the olympics so i question if it make sense to suggest to everyone to go out, run 100mpw and live like a monk only to reach a decent PR...

Anyway there are different success stories:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=907089

Well you, if you're operating with less than ideal conditions (work/kids/other obligations) than high mileage is certainly not the best option. It's all about how much time you want to commit, how fast you want to run, and what is too much for you personally.

I don't think anyone not in college/training at a very high level really needs to be doing high mileage (60+). Do what's enjoyable, provides balance in your life, and keeps you fit.

High mileage is how you develop "runners heart". This was something that started in New Zealand in the 60s. There was a group of men that ran 20-24 miles a day training for the 1500m in the olympics. This was known as Lydiard training. Over time their hearts grew up to 20% bigger and their heart rate lowers into the low 30s. Look up Peter Snell training for the 1964 olympics.

Great post. Yes, it's exactly this

Old mantra wrote:

LRC consensus is that high mileage is the only way to success, no matter the type of event you're training for and if you're a responder to that type of training. Not everyone has the talent to run in the olympics so i question if it make sense to suggest to everyone to go out, run 100mpw and live like a monk only to reach a decent PR...

Anyway there are different success stories:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=907089

Reading Spivey's posts is golden.

Let's see if this will work this time:

800 dude: great post. Yes it's exactly this

awesome blossom wrote:

Ok, I understand the benefits of building your mileage if you're a beginner and your body just isn't adapted to running, but I can't think of anything in life where you benefit from doing the same thing over and over again at a low effort level of activity. Is the real benefit of high mileage weight loss/management?

Long slow distance = rapid weight loss right? Doing three, ten mile runs a week > six five mile runs? This has definitely been the case for me.

High mileage does not normally lead to rapid weight loss. If it does, it means you are in a negative energy balance. This is not sustainable in the long term nor is it health. While weight loss correlates with exercise, they are not mutually exclusive. If you are running 140 miles a week, your weight should stay consistent with minor fluctuations due to water retention/loss and bowel movements (seriously).

awesome blossom wrote:

I can't think of anything in life where you benefit from doing the same thing over and over again at a low effort level of activity.

This is my favorite part of the post. You really couldn’t think of anything? What about every motor skill, like playing all musical instruments, darts, knitting, whittling, shuffling cards? What about a mental skill like doing crossword puzzles? What about your job? Were you as good at it on your first day as you were after 10 years?

There’s this thing called “practice” or “rehearsal” that lots of people do across almost every field of human endeavor, for some inexplicable reason, but since you can’t think of anything, they must be wasting their time. I’m glad you set us all straight.

800 dude wrote:

My approach has been to periodize my moderate-paced running. So early in a training cycle, I run a lot of my non-workout mileage at a pretty solid clip (mid to low sixes for a 2:30 guy, after a few miles of easing into it). This doesn't leave me too beat-up for my workouts, because my workouts are easier at this stage of the cycle. As I get closer to key competitions, the quality days get harder and harder, and in order to be ready for them, it becomes necessary to go easier and easier on other days. I've found that this always brings me to a pretty good peak, but it also means that I end up cannibalizing some of my base, and it's necessary to go back to easier workouts and a lot of moderate running before I can make a similar push again.

This is basically Lydiard training, it is what I've found works for me as well.

Buffalo Orange wrote:

This is my favorite part of the post. You really couldn’t think of anything? What about every motor skill, like playing all musical instruments, darts, knitting, whittling, shuffling cards? What about a mental skill like doing crossword puzzles? What about your job? Were you as good at it on your first day as you were after 10 years?

With motor skills, you're developing muscle memory. The activity starts shifting from working the part of the brain that requires concentration to perform to something that doesn't (e.g. walking without tripping). Running is like walking.

I get better at my job by being given more responsibilities and stretch opportunities.

Take five responding to this guy's post: yes, it's the whole

has anyone tried lipo lasers?

I heard that lipo lasers are useful for those who want to get rid of extra weight