Unpopular Opinion: You can run well off 35-40 miles/wk

Agree, most runners can reach 90-95% of their potential at shorter distances on 35-40 mpw with an intelligent training plan. A smaller subset will thrive on higher mileage.

I often wonder what Wheating could have done if he and his coaches had defied conventional wisdom and stayed in the 35-40 mile/week range. The guy had so much talent that he seemed to improve by leaps and bounds off of almost any training at all. Unfortunately, his huge frame turned out to be extremely fragile when faced with the stresses of pro-level training. His body was held together by duct tape and airplane glue by the time he retired.

Not gonna lie... I think Wheating could have gone at least 3:28 and medaled at the Olympics or WCs off of 35-40 miles/week.

I run 2:29 for the marathon the last two seasons with avg 40mpw during 20 weeks and under 30mpw the rest of the year. At 42 years old.

I previously tried higher milleage and always failed to get in shape, often getting injured.

It's true I work long hours, have three kids, sleep 6 hours per day at best, nothing in terms of recovery, and can only do 3 to 5 training sessions per week on irregular gaps I make in my schedule.

I guess if I had more time to rest I could train more and run faster, but I also honestly think this is very close to my potential.

In terms of developing mitochondria and all that, I think doing high volume sessions is much more efficient than high volume weeks. Most of my 40mpw weeks could be broken down in one +20miles pretty hard run, about 15miles of reps faster than race pace, and no more than 5miles of junk: warm up/recovery/cool down.

My take is that a runner needs to do as many miles as possible subject to the constraints of avoiding injury and still staying fresh enough to do the 2-3 harder sessions a week necessary at the required intensity.

Some people can do lots, some people can't.

I was always somewhere in the middle and probably felt best on somewhere in the 70-80 mile range (higher when I didn't work full time).

No doubt many can run well off 40-50 but for MOST, it probably won't be reaching their full potential. But, if you break down on 55 miles a week then whatever you can do off 50 miles a week IS your full potential.

This is a great thread. Anyone who has dealt with injury enough has been in that cycle of run a lot, run hard, get hurt, cross train/stop running, repeat. At some point you end up thinking maybe if I just do a little less and a little more of that cross training/non running work when I'm NOT injured. There's something great about the feeling of doing a swim, bike, or elliptical and still knowing you could stop whenever you want and hop on the treadmill or do a run the next day.

One thing to consider is weight. You can run 35-40 mpw, eat a typical American diet, and not lose a pound. However if you’re running 80 mpw you’re most likely gonna lose 5-10 pounds over a six month period. That could be the difference between a 16:30 and a 15:30 5k.

After freshman year of college I ran about 10-20 mpw for about year and a half. Ran 16:59 and 4:24 1500m in the same meet and then 16:34 the following year.

NeedSomeTalent wrote:

If you have some talent, any race 8k or under you can run very competitively off 35-40 miles a wk and 2 workouts per week. Change my mind.

Sounds like you are trying to justify continuing to run even though you only want to do 35-40 miles a week.

As has been said, you can't reach your potential running that little. You can throw up all kinds of roadblocks like injury, etc., but if a person can't handle running more than that, then that's a limit of their talent...the talent to stay uninjured.

When I was in high school during the less is more period of the early to mid 80s, I was competitive on 15 miles a week. Would have been a lot better if we ran more.

NeedSomeTalent wrote:

If you have some talent, any race 8k or under you can run very competitively off 35-40 miles a wk and 2 workouts per week. Change my mind.

Your query seems like a variation on the financial theme of the CBA; the cost-benefit analysis: "Is the COST of running more miles worth the BENEFIT you receive from running more miles?”

Their cannot be a consensus as each individual places different value on the elements of “COST” and “BENEFIT”.

When I was in HS and college the cost was very low and benefit was very high, to hell with the risks. Running helped pay for my college. I’m turning 60 now and the cost of running more miles is very high with the benefit being low.

For a non-starving American population, one mechanism by which miles per week (mpw) improves performance is likely moving athletes' weights to the lighter side of healthy. I think this bring up a valid question: for a steady weight, does mpw or long run distance matter more for building endurance? Some folks have had marathon success with minimal mpw but high long run distance, see Yuki and Benji, though they do appear to be exceptions rather than the rule:https://runningscience.co.za/elite-athletes-training-log/yuki-kawauchi/https://www.copacabanarunners.net/ipath.html I guess the question is how many elites have tried minimal to medium mpw with a greater long run distance rather than resorting to both high mpw and high long run distance? Lagat may be our guinea pig, if he pulls off a competitive run before the Trials in 2020.

Jake and the fat man wrote:

One thing to consider is weight. You can run 35-40 mpw, eat a typical American diet, and not lose a pound. However if you’re running 80 mpw you’re most likely gonna lose 5-10 pounds over a six month period. That could be the difference between a 16:30 and a 15:30 5k.

That correlation won't tell you much, aside from the opinion of a coach on how to train good/aspiring runners. i.e. the ability and / or aspiration of the runner drove that decision, not the result of mileage. Put another way - you have very few counterfactuals for this. Barely any good collegiate runners are trying to be good on south of 35-40mpw, so you have barely any idea of the possible outcomes.

Slow Pokes don't count wrote:

Said by the guy who runs 26 minutes. Nobody is running 23:30 on 40 mpw. Poll 1000 college guys and you will see a direct correlation between the number of miles run and the times run.

What do people thing about low mileage, high cross training?

Say 35-40mpw in 5 runs, 2 running workouts and 2-3 cross training workouts - each which could be more intense or longer than the easy mileage they replace.

Especially over 800/1500m, there are some runners who have had phenomenal success from this type of program.

Steph Briefontaine wrote:

What do people thing about low mileage, high cross training?

Say 35-40mpw in 5 runs, 2 running workouts and 2-3 cross training workouts - each which could be more intense or longer than the easy mileage they replace.

Especially over 800/1500m, there are some runners who have had phenomenal success from this type of program.

There probably is something in that for some. It depends on the event though.

The way i see it is when you're training you're trying to develop the CV system to pump blood around the body as well as possible and also the ability of the muscles to actually move you!

You can do a lot more with the CV system than you can with muscles as a runner. i.e. your legs will fail before the rest of you does (assuming adequate fuelling, which is relatively straightforward). Look at the volume of training e.g. cyclists and swimmers can do for example.

Perhaps with XT you lose a bit of that running specificity but if you're limited to the amount of running you can tolerate then its a very good second best. I doubt it would work as well for longer races though where the ability of the legs to absorb the damage of e.g. a road marathon is trainable and very important.

40 mpw is all anyone needs to race at their best?! Wow, if only Bekele had cut his mileage down to 40 back when he was on the track, who knows how fast his world records could have been!

You sound like an idiot btw, if 40 mpw is all anyone needed then no professional runners would be doing 2-3x as much to run the 5 and 10k. But I'm sure you know more than these professional coaches which is why your pr is probably about 17:30.

And just to be clear, I'm not talking about the OP here as he didn't make the same claim that this guy has.

NeedSomeTalent wrote:

If you have some talent, any race 8k or under you can run very competitively off 35-40 miles a wk and 2 workouts per week. Change my mind.

I'd say this is mostly true for 800 to 1500m. If you only have the time or the health to run 35-40mpw, you'd be better off in the middle distances.

Anecdote time: Coming in to my senior track season of college after having been injured all of junior year and senior xc I decided to bike for 60-90 minutes 2 days a week, bringing my peak mileage down from 70ish to 50ish. I felt a ton better on a day to day basis and that wound up being by far the most successful 6 months of running I ever had. I raced 1500-5k probably 10 times from January to May and each race was a 3+ second PR. Maybe there were other factors at work too but it seemed to allow me to get the basic mileage I needed and hit workouts and long runs harder than before.

NeedSomeTalent wrote:

Slow Pokes don't count wrote:

Said by the guy who runs 26 minutes. Nobody is running 23:30 on 40 mpw. Poll 1000 college guys and you will see a direct correlation between the number of miles run and the times run.

Nope, actually ran 9:01 in the 3k and 15:49 in the 5k off 40-50 miles/wk in college. Still running 35-40 now and running road 5ks in the 16:30s.

HAHAHAHAHA how obvious is it that the OP is faster than the guy "slow pokes don't count," who also can't read?

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

The world is full of runners capable of running very high weekly mileage, but only a few of them can run really fast in a race.

I agree.

I read post all the time here (I'm paraphrasing): I am a high school sophomore. I run 1600m in 5:15. Help me break five minutes. I run 30 to 40 miles per week.

Ninety to Ninety-five percent of the responses are: Run more miles.

If one has to run 75 miles per week to race sub-5 for 1600m, what is next?

In high school, Justyn Knight ran pretty well off low mileage,

See this thread.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6766190