Well... wrote:
This is call a diminishing return. If I'm reading the article correctly, it states that the most effective mileage volume is 70 mpw. This is not saying there's no benefit to 100+. This is simply saying you get the most bang for the buck out of 70.
I have always believed this is just about the sweet spot. I get fit running 70 mpw and can run near my capabilities. I run a little faster on 90 mpw, but its a lot more work and takes substantially more planning, caution to not get hurt, extra care on sleep and nutrition, etc.
It's different for everyone, of course, but there's a nice life to running balance at around 70-75 mpw.
The above quote makes some really valid points. I guess if you're a full time runner who has the time to run over 70 or 100 mpw, the additonal miles will still provide some benefit but at a much lower return vs. going from 40 to 70. Daniels has a nice graph in his book that illustrates the diminishing returns. However, there have been many testimonials on this website that have validated the virtures of high mileage (wejo included). I guess the key here is that for those of us who have full time jobs, familes, etc., getting up over 70 mpw is more difficult and increases the risk of injury. Or as an economist would say, the increase or return from higher mileage over 70 mpw (via faster times)is probably lower than the increase in probability of injury. Of course there are exceptions to this rule as well.