Can anyone help ballpark how much of a difference running a program averaging 60 vs 75 vs 90 mpw (all else held constant) has on a marathon result? Say for a pretty mediocre early 30-something with a 3:00ish marathon time off a 50mpw plan.
This might not exactly answer your question, but here's my personal experience from a few years back on the same half marathon course:
Fall 2017 running around 60-65 mpw: 1:18
Fall 2018 running around 70-80 mpw: 1:14
Fall 2019 running around 85-90 mpw: 1:12
After the fall 2019 half marathon I finally mustered up the courage to try a full marathon. I went through halfway in 1:20 and died a painful death the second half, finishing in 2:48. I didn't take any gels and didn't have supershoes, so I'd like to think I could have gone much faster with better nutrition and shoes.
Yes and he set it in his late 30s. He runs slower now and complains constantly. He barely races 5k at a faster pace than he does 10 mile training runs.
He's been running 75 miles a week... for 20 years... and his 24 minute 5k pb was set in his late 30s?
So many aspects of this are quite literally unbelievable.
I’ll have to see if I can find it, but I read a very interesting study that determined that increasing your easy aerobic volume is more beneficial to your Vo2Max than Vo2Max workouts.
Please do share that study if you can find it. Thanks in advance.
I’ll have to see if I can find it, but I read a very interesting study that determined that increasing your easy aerobic volume is more beneficial to your Vo2Max than Vo2Max workouts.
Please do share that study if you can find it. Thanks in advance.
It is hard to break this stuff out but volume is the big driver. Doing 30 mpw with a lot of vo2max workouts isnt going to be as good as 70mpw with 1/3rd the number of quality workouts. Doing something like 18 months of 10 hours of easy running will boost your vo2max by like 50%(40 to 60). Doing 12 weeks of vo2max work will give minimal gains. You will get decent economy and threshold gains though so your race times will improve.
you will see a ton of studies that talk about the importance of intensity. They are right that in 8 weeks you are going to gain a lot by recruiting those ft/intermediate fibers that get largely ignored by easy running. But it is largely a 1 time event and you really don’t need that much to get there.
if you look at the trends in aerobic development, it is volume for most of the year. Do you do 6*1000 at vo2 pace ( call it 18mins if work) or do you do 10*1000 at 10-20s slower than vo2max? The first was the 90s theory. Lately people have favored the volume and mainly doing the fast stuff during those last 12 weeks.
Historically there have been a lot of distance guys like Ron Clarke and Nenow who rarely did intervals. Lots of mileage. Some of it pushing down towards threshold.
You shouldn’t totally ignore speed and higher intensity running, but in general getting that first 7-10 hours of easy work is the key driver. It just isn’t as much fun to talk about as workout sequencing and the like.
I think it does require nuance when talking about mileage/volume (like the OP already acknowledged).
It's my belief (and one that seems to be backed up by the science) that mileage is great and necessary but, to a certain point, you will plateau if mileage for the sake of mileage/volume is all that you are doing. What I mean by this is that ignoring fluctuations of intensity will leave your potential max gains far less than an individual who cycles through easy runs, coupled with speed development/maintenance, and actual workouts/pace changing efforts.
In other words, an individual who does 80 miles/week with most of the mileage/volume done at about the same effort is worse off (imo) than an individual who does 65 miles/week with variations of efforts so as to touch on every tool needed to be faster.
All of this also needs to take into account the individual: are they more FT or Slow-Twitch?
I am 55. I run 20 MP doing 2 quality days and 2 easy days. I have a work buddy who is 45. He has been running 75 MPW for 20 years at 9-10 minute mile pace. His lifetime PR is 24 minutes while I still run 17 minutes.
Way to brag! Also, I call bull$h1t on this one. Nobody runs 75mpw for 20 years and has a 24 minute 5k PR.
Simple idea: you do more, you get better. In the broadest strokes and for the broadest folks, this is probably true. Right? We can argue the minutiae of what the "right" volume is and how to find it but I think that it is generally true that increasing volume increases performance. I want to also make sure the discussion is broad because I think too often the training discussions here focus on the elite and for a highly fit athlete focusing on specific race stimulus, generic volume is maybe not as helpful. But for the LESS FIT OR DEVELOPING RUNNER, I think volume really can be the closest thing to a training "magic bullet." But if you disagree, let me hear it!
Also, I originally typed this with "mileage" as the operative word but I think that is an important distinction. I think volume is a better term because it can catch things like cross-training. For the training of runners like Natalie Cook and Parker Valby, many say they are low mileage but I think if you were to look at their training volume it would be rather high, with things like elliptical and alter g.
This post was intended to addresses “the less fit or developing runner”. Not so much the established/elite runners. But it appears the the vast majority of comments here can’t resist getting up on the stage and showing off how much advanced knowledge they possess.
A 2 mile warmup followed by 4 mile progressive run and 2 mile cool down takes less time than an easy 8 miles.
Maybe I am too slow on warmups and cooldowns (also adding drills in the warmup) but my mileage runs are always my shortest training days, in terms of time. But I was more referring to a typical track workout, which would be something like 2 miles up, drills and strides, then 8x 400 off 1 minute rest, and 2 miles cooldown. This session would take time itself, of course, but then also take time in the following days, necessitating recovery that you don't need as much of after mileage runs or cross-training for volume. This was more the point I was making.
I am 55. I run 20 MP doing 2 quality days and 2 easy days. I have a work buddy who is 45. He has been running 75 MPW for 20 years at 9-10 minute mile pace. His lifetime PR is 24 minutes while I still run 17 minutes.
Way to brag! Also, I call bull$h1t on this one. Nobody runs 75mpw for 20 years and has a 24 minute 5k PR.
My personal belief is nobody 45 years old doing 75mpw would care racing a 5k. His pr was in his 30's because he didn't race one ever since.
I estimate that he does 5 per year. He does one marathon. The running club probably has 1000 members. Many are like him. They are slow and most seemed to start running in their 20s.
No, it's not. Running is a skill. You and 99.9% of others don't understand this. This is what we gain from those thousands of miles of running. Your aerobic metabolism is already developed because that's an essential biological function.
Training improves running economy (how efficient you are at the “skill” of running a specific pace).
Training also improves your aerobic capacity (how much oxygen you can use).
Training improves how you process lactate and your buffering abilities (lactate threshold).
Training improves your tissue strength so your muscles, tendons, etc. don’t breakdown. This allows you to maintain your running economy.
Training improves your central governor (brain) so that you can continue to give relatively high output even as body temperature rises, your lactate levels rise or your muscle glycogen gets low.
Aerobic capacity isn't going up. It's plateauing for longer. Think about it.
No, it's not. Running is a skill. You and 99.9% of others don't understand this. This is what we gain from those thousands of miles of running. Your aerobic metabolism is already developed because that's an essential biological function.
You can have a high vo2max and still be slow…
You can’t be a high level endurance athlete without having an upper percentile vo2max though.
You’ll hear guys say “But my one teammate only had a vo2max of 55 and he ran X times, so Vo2max doesn’t matter”. This is still a top 2-3% Vo2max score. You take 50 random people, and have them all race a 3k at their maximum potential and this guy will still most likely win let alone podium.
What about someone with a Vo2Max in the upper average range of 35? 40? Ever heard of any people like that being successful in competitive running?
Yes, you can have a high VO2 max and still be slow. But you don't need a high VO2 max to be fast. 70ml/kg/min with a low bmi isn't high. But it's typical for elite runners and it's typical for a lot of non elites too. But elite distance runners have good speed endurance far better than most.
What I don't understand is why you deny your own abilities?
No, it's not. Running is a skill. You and 99.9% of others don't understand this. This is what we gain from those thousands of miles of running. Your aerobic metabolism is already developed because that's an essential biological function.
Training improves running economy (how efficient you are at the “skill” of running a specific pace).
Training also improves your aerobic capacity (how much oxygen you can use).
Training improves how you process lactate and your buffering abilities (lactate threshold).
Training improves your tissue strength so your muscles, tendons, etc. don’t breakdown. This allows you to maintain your running economy.
Training improves your central governor (brain) so that you can continue to give relatively high output even as body temperature rises, your lactate levels rise or your muscle glycogen gets low.
Well said. To truly improve, you need mileage as well as speed. If all you do is run long, slow miles, all you will ever deliver are long, slow races. I just ran Chicago Marathon, excellent base with weekly mileage peaking at 100 mpw (averaging 75-85 for the training block). MaxVO2 at 61 (late 55+ y/o male). The majority of miles were easy miles. The aerobic engine was great, but with too little threshold training and speed incorporated into my training, the wheels fell off the car at 20. The quads and hamstrings simply were not ready for that workload at that speed because there was not enough prior conditioning at that level. More mileage is not the only answer to improving. You need both.
I think volume is really important. I am not very athletic at all and in my late 30s, I started running (averaged 60 miles a week for 3years w 100 mile weeks in the summer) and got to 16:49 at age 39 or 40. My improvement was pretty substantial and rapid. I ran most of my miles slow but I ran strong tempos that were 5+ miles. Easy days were 7:30-8:00 min miles but workouts were always done hard but comfortable. I didn’t do a ton of fast short stuff (400m and under) but I did do some and my daily route had plenty of hills. I would do something faster than tempo each week and a tempo paced run each week. I would do a 15 mile run at least twice a week.
I see the mileage obsession pull down many runners (amateurs). Most would post faster times if they reduced their time spent jogging many easy miles and increase the time spent doing more work on fundamental speed.
Kiptum is not averaging 4:37 per mile because of easy long distance.
lots going on here...you make a remark about amateurs but then reference the training of a PROFESSIONAL runner with the current world record in the marathon. it complete negates any point you are trying to make and it was just revealed that Kiptum runs a TON of mileage likely at an "easy" pace relative to his ability.
As someone previously mentioned, the focus on time on the feet is important to build some kind of durability. If an amateur obsesses over reaching X miles per week they increase the chances of injury. If instead they focus on getting 8-10 hours of running/jogging per week then their mileage will gradually increase even if time running/jogging stays the same due to physical improvement.
Did you have any tune up races leading into Chicago like a half-marathon or 10-miler? I agree you need some speed work for the legs in order to endure a race like the marathon. Easy mileage is not the end all be all, but it's very effective for a base like you said. From there the specificity of training varies on the goal of the runner.