Why high mileage?

Good words and example. There are many more examples that points to that you can go many different ways but still reach your max individual performance on low or medium amount of mileage. And this also applies for marathoners . I coached a guy on just 55 mpw during a couple of years. He ran constant this 55 mpw, sometimes less, and he raced maybe just 3-5 times during this period. He went out in a marathon race as a pacemaker and had to stop at 30 km in a time of 1.32 hour, not because he was tired, because he was not allowed to finish . Even if he had slowed down a little last 12 k he had run sub 2.10 . Same if we take the more known example Yuki Kawauchi. He just run singles and still have run 2.08 . Friend of order ( the high mileage friends) then say : But what have happened if they had run 120 + miles? Yes,that we dont know, but what we know is that they reached sub 2.10 aerob strength on just singles, and in my coached runners case on just 55 mpw. So this low mileage or medium mileage concept is valid not only for people with less time to devote to training , but also for world class elite runners.

theJeff wrote:

N+1:

I increased my mileage this past winter significantly (from a max of 70mpw to 90mpw). I did nothing faster than 10k pace (besides some short hill sprints) for about 3 months during this time. During this training block, I signed up for 2 different 5k races... and PRd them both. This told me that I was very underdeveloped aerobically.

What did you do before on 70 mpw? Same stuff as increasing from 70 mpw to 90 mpw?

Why you keep seeing posts like this? Because there are some people , not the majority , that have realized the untrue myth about the compulsion of a high mileage to succeed to your very best performance possible. I don`t say the high mileage phase systems don`t function. How could I ? There are lots of world class runners who have succeed with that kind of system. I`m only saying there are a low mileage or medium mileage alternative, that is at least good as the high mileage. I like to call it smart mileage.

Just compare American distance running stats in the 70s/80s to the 90s.

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

I have also the experience that you can f.ex run more than 10% of your weekly mileage at f.ex LT-pace(lactate threshold).

Why would you send your runs to Fedex?

mousey mousekewitz wrote:

Well, you obviously weren't really training/racing hard like a high school or college runner when you were running 17:04. I went from 17:40 my first ever XC race my junior year of high school and ran 14:30 in college. Also ran 4:06 mile and 1:51 800. split 48

I never did more than 55-60 miles per week because i would get injured/sick/over-trained/uninterested/you name it. If i could handle 100 mpw, would i have been faster? Maybe, but i would have required a different, more durable body. That's not how it works. Durability and mental toughness are parts of talent and you get what you get..

Maybe if you ran your easy days very very easy, jogging slower than 8min pace you would have been able to handle more than 55-60 a week, become more durable, been able to run your hard days faster and run faster in college?

With Doug Padilla's low mileage, maybe he didn't count the very sloooow warm downs in his mileage? Maybe he wouldn't have got injured running higher mileage if he had run much slower on recovery days?

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

Same if we take the more known example Yuki Kawauchi. He just run singles and still have run 2.08 .

Yuki runs singles but is not an example of a low mileage runner.

This is what is meant by high mileage. I've seen people improve quite a bit after hitting 90mpw or higher. That is a lot of miles for most people. For an avg. hobby jogger, increasing from lets say 40 to 50 of mostly just junk miles won't do anything. Better off doing faster quality stuff.

Though I am not an expert in physiology or in training, I have studied (for fun) elite runners training as well as much of it from over the past century. One of the common themes is moderate to high mileage. There are some but very very few runners especially for mile up that experienced a lot of success without hitting around 70 mpw for at least some of the year. Depending on who you are you may consider this low, moderate or high mileage....Even today most (not all) highly successful 800m runners spend at least some portion of the year running 50mpw + when considering the distance of the event is relatively high in comparison.

Now saying that just about everyone that I have studied that has been highly successful in our sport also does faster to moderate paced runs during train(duh). I do not know of any runners off the top of my head that have only did slow mileage without ever hitting at least marathon pace or faster during training (I’m considering anything that touches marathon pace or faster to fall within moderate or faster spectrum). Some obviously hit moderate to fast paces more than others. Some have found high amounts of success doing as little as 1 moderate to fast paced efforts (tempos,fartleks,intervals) every week. Some do some sort of moderate to fast paced efforts almost daily...

Saying all that we understand that even slower paced running promotes physiological benefits that are beneficial to distance running events without a high amount of stress.

Again by no means am I an expert but the general idea is to create a sustainable systematic approach that will make a runner faster without a high risk of injury or burnout.

From a physiological perspective and practically speaking moderate to high intensity training though very beneficial also promotes the greatest risk for significant injury and in general requires more recovery before the body is ready. LSD is a more sustainable approach that you can do day in and day out without a high risk of injury while still applying stress to the body that will result in running faster.

Sure you can get injured but it typically happens over a longer period of time and typically there are warning signs prior and often the injuries are less significant vs HIT where it often happens instantaneously with little to no warning signs.

In my experience I was more high intensity low volume in high school and ran ok (16 min). My first time doing higher mileage I doubled what I did in high school from 25-35 to 50-70 mpw consistently for 1.5 to 2 months. During that span all my runs where at 630 to 830 pace and I only did 2 workouts where I hit paces faster than my everyday pace. As a result I dropped my pr 30 secs 6 weeks in while going out like madman and only 18 secs slower than my mile pr during that 5k.

Obviously there are huge variants but generally speaking there are very very few exceptions of individuals that have run what we consider elite without relatively moderate to high volume.

My guess is that if you where to put together a study that included every runner that has ever run relatively fast let’s say sub 4, sub 14, sub 29:30 my guess is less than 10% achieved this without hitting 70mpw + for atleast a portion of the season.

To conclude, its hard to say there are absolutes and there are always exceptions but to give your self the best odds at being successful in our sport from a training perspective (I’m assuming you possess the talent). You need both relatively higher mileage/volume along with occasionally running paces that would touch the moderate to faster section of the spectrum. Those that choose to ignore history and do only high volume or only high intensity give themselves the lowest chance of being successful assuming they possess the genetic talent to make it far in our sport.

Sorry for long winded, poorly structured and ungrammatical response. It’s like walking on eggs or land mines around here.

This post has so many problems. Where do people get this number of 90 or 100 miles? What about the individual? I do understand when training for the marathon mileage would be important but the poster mentioned the 5K. What about the faster twitch 5k runners who weigh 170 lbs? Do you think they would benefit from high mileage? I would prefer to focus on 3 to 4 quality sessions per week for the 5k and under races. I also feel recovery is more important for the shorter races and going out and trying to hit a random total mileage just to say you hit your numbers is stupid.

Not saying it's for everyone but something about hitting 90mpw or higher for months. I seen many runners make dramatic improvements. Massive PRs from short to long distances. And the mileage was done mostly pretty slow. I, myself didn't believe in high mileage. Unfortunately for me, I am too old to try it now as I am knocking on 49 soon. My body just can't handle the pounding past 50 to 55mpw. I wish I tried it when I younger. The biggest improvements I had was with fast intervals when I was in college. So naturally, I am an advocate of fast intervals. But I've seen the proof of high mileage. It works for those who tried and stuck with it.

Run Around wrote:

This post has so many problems. Where do people get this number of 90 or 100 miles? What about the individual? I do understand when training for the marathon mileage would be important but the poster mentioned the 5K. What about the faster twitch 5k runners who weigh 170 lbs? Do you think they would benefit from high mileage? I would prefer to focus on 3 to 4 quality sessions per week for the 5k and under races. I also feel recovery is more important for the shorter races and going out and trying to hit a random total mileage just to say you hit your numbers is stupid.

Bigger runners arguably need to run more mileage as their oxygen demand for the event is greater. As far as mileage, it should be more focused on time on your feet. That is to aim to run 10+ hours a week (Arthur Lydiard athletes would usually run 100 miles in 10 hours that is where the 100 mile number comes from). A parallel are cyclist, serious cyclist train about 30 hours a week. Now three hours of cycling equals about one hour running aerobically (I know their not the same thing and have different impact on the body). So that equals to about 10 hours of running per week. Now doing a little bit over a hour of running per day is not a lot.

My general guideline of what is low, moderate and high mileage:

Low mileage is 75 miles per week or less

Moderate mileage is 80 to 100 miles a week

High mileage is 120+ miles a week

It's all in to adapt the body to higher training load.

Once you've adapted to higher training load by increased miles you can then drop the miles down and handle more intense training than you would have ever been able to handle on low miles.

1) Correct - I was not training as hard as a college runner when I was going 40-50 mpw and hitting 3:00:27 in the marathon. Very astute observation.

2) I’ve never run further than 21.4 miles in my life excluding races. I’ve only been over 20 thrice.

3) I race frequently and sharpen well with a taper

4) I have a tremendous racing instinct and you’re wildly poor deductive reasoning skills have offended me. You’re a 2:28 guy? What race are you doing this fall? I will sign up for the same one and destroy you. We can talk about my ability to suffer afterwards.

5) I am not kidding.

*your

And of course there is a point of diminishing returns where increased mileage does not result in adaptation, but just leads to injury and break down. That point is different for different people. You will never know what point is right for you without trying to methodically increase your mileage and seeing where it gets you.

Increase very slowly over years and you will get the most out of your body. Rupp is a perfect example of someone who methodically increased his mileage and has accomplished more (over a side range of distance) with the talent level he was dealt, than any other American runner in modern times. Every successful runner you can think of, would never have accomplished their success without first adapting their body to higher training volume and more durability/fatigue resistance.

Why high mileage? wrote:

I often see here advises to people who want to run faster a 10k or a 5k to increase their mileage. My question is what is the reason that more miles of easy to moderate pace running would be beneficial for faster 5-10k times?

Why not increase your intervals reps, increase your tempo miles, increase your fartleck miles? Why is it always increase your garbage miles? Why would running more garbage miles would better than running more miles at faster paces?

I agree with you!

when I see other people's training plans and I'm like seriously.

I don't do 50 mi a week or anything though I am training for 3k/5k

It's always interesting how the 'mileage is king' brigade always say that the runners who were successful on lower mileage schedules would have improved with more. 'Imagine what he'd have run if he'd have trained properly' etc. Surely that can just as easily be turned around? Maybe the 120-150 mpw guys would have run faster if they'd have cut their volume down to 70 mpw but trained faster with more sessions? Was Shorter as good as he was because of his mileage or despite it?

There also seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding that the only way to to stress the aerobic system is with longer, slower runs. 6x1000m @ 10-15k pace with 800m jog recovery is a very aerobic session and also more specific to race pace.

How many miles do you think a 13-year-old should do then if you think it's for hobby joggers.(I do less than 80)