Why is it not a linear relationship between mileage and fitness?
Why is it not a linear relationship between mileage and fitness?
You do improve. It takes time to adapt to your new training load.
You need YEARS at higher mileage.
That is a very deep question.
I suspect the underlying reason has to do with how biological/physiological phenomena or processes "saturate".
i.e. the receptors probably are all occupied and more doesn't increase the response.
analogy: if your goal was to get fat and you were given free passes to both Golden Corral and another all u can eat restaurant, you wouldn't get fat any quicker than if you only had the free Golden Corral.
more realistic: living high/training low seems to work in some situations. but sleeping at 8,000m (25,000 ft) elevation is no better than sleeping at 8 or 9,000 feet. In fact it's probably worse because other negative factors at high altitude get worse at 8,000 m. e.g. one loses appetite, brain/neural function impaired etc.
running more miles can't stimulate more mitochondria production or heart volume, but it will break down your muscles/tendons etc.
the science wrote:
Why is it not a linear relationship between mileage and fitness?
It's not the mileage that makes you slower, it's your lack of recovery or ability to recover. You can only run as much mileage as you are able to recover from. A lot of people don't understand that.
Because.
the science wrote:
Why is it not a linear relationship between mileage and fitness?
The Law of Diminishing Returns applies to many things and it does to distance running. Improved fitness comes during your recovery. The runs break you down. The recovery improves your fitness but as time spent training increases the amount of time for recovery decreases.