Why does weekly mileage matter so much? (Read 3293 times)

Man, ACEDAVE,

Why don't you pat yourself on the back just a little more?

You have countered every comment given, so it seems as if you have decided and good for you.

For us other mortals, we go out to have fun. A goal is a goal but most of us take it as form of recreation.

Thousands of us would love to have your numbers but not your attitude.

I am glad that I am 60 years old, can still walk, can run 8 or 9 minute miles, can do a 1/2, can hug my grandkids and can laugh when I get passed by someone like you. (I didn't say who I was laughing at).

Have a good run everyone

Don't see what the big deal is here. This kind of topic has been covered on numerous occasions. Just search the boards.

I will give you an interesting thought behind more miles, more speed.

After running about 40mpw for  2 months(mixing it up with easy, hard etc)  I did a 5k Time Trial - 22:13

Then I decided to up the miles and cut out the speed work, all easy. For the next 8 or so weeks I went out most days, and averaged over this period of time 60mpw, peaking at around 70. All the runs were very easy, in fact I used a heart rate monitor (MAF Training).

I beleive when I started my aerobic pace was around 8:50/mile, albeit if I went anything over 4/5 miles I would get a huge cardiac drift and my pace would slow down drastically as I was sticking to my HR reading.

8 weeks later, my aerobic pace was 7:30ish, i.e same heart rate as before, more speed.

I then came off this training plan, did a track session of intervals on the tueday night, and then on the wednesday night did the same 5k time trial.......

I was made up with the results. I covered it in 18:50! Now that is some improvement. Go figure, more miles, more speed.

Whats more important, pushing yourself to run faster paces or the amount of miles (quantity vs. quality)?

I think it's a mixture of both.  Personally, I saw the greatest improvement in my race times when I increased my mileage but also added one race pace workout a week - tempo runs @ goal 10K pace (much faster than usually recommended); intervals @ goal 5K pace (which for me doesn't feel so hard).  I'm experimenting with even higher mileage this season, though.  But, if I don't see results, I'll probably go back to what I was doing before.  And, I think that's the key to traning well - read or take advice from experienced runners/coaches, give what they recommend a try, then keep what works for you and discard what doesn't.

Anyways I always hear about the weekly mileage, but I know people who run 2 to 3 times as much as me, yet they are running 9-10 minute pace.  What is the real benefit of running 30, 40, or 50+ miles when training for a half marathon?  Is it about preventing cramps and fatigue, or about increasing pace?   Why do some people who run so much never improve their times?  Whats more important, pushing yourself to run faster paces or the amount of miles (quantity vs. quality)?

I'm not as experienced as some of the others here but I have been increasing my mileage over the last couple of years and it has worked for me.

To me there is a big difference between running 40, 50 miles (or whatever) for just a couple of months for a race and running 40, 50 miles for months, even years.  It's the mileage over time.  I do a couple of workouts a week, and what they are depends on when and how long my next race is.  My "plans" are pretty much a few weeks of sharpening for whatever race I am running.  My mileage doesn't vary all that much over the course of a year.

Right now I am training for races that are 6 months or more down the road.  The money is in the bank for races that are in the near future.  Changing my thinking to this way has been the key for me.

That's my take on it.

It doesn't, assuming your goal is to maximize your tennis abilities.

So, let's ask that question....  How much time a week do you spend on tennis?  How much time does someone like Nadal or Federer spend a week playing tennis?

Then we look at elite distance runners.  How many miles do they average in a week?  Most are doing 100+.  So, it stands to reason that the more time one spends practicing and perfecting a given skill, the better one becomes at said skill.

Of course there are those who have a natural predisposition for certain skills.  That would generally be a prerequisite for an elite-level athlete.  However, it also takes a lot of time, over the course of many years, to fully develop those talents.

In the end, if you're happy training a minimum amount for running, no one will give a rodent's hind quarters.  It's your life, your choices.  It is, however,  rather disingenuous to come to a running community and try to argue against running a lot.  I certainly see no point in my going to a tennis site and arguing against playing a lot of tennis and practicing my serves.  But hey, you are open to your opinion, much as most here may disagree with it.  Just have an open mind, and be prepared to hear the other side.

My personal experience is that it is not so much the "weekly mileage" that counts, but your "total mileage".

Myself for example.  I used to be like you.  For 4-5 years, I ran pretty consistently between 10-20 miles per week.  I did a few marathons, and 5Ks.  Each year, my 5K time may or may not have gotten a bit faster because my base was a little bigger.  My marathon times never improved (sorry, I wasnt running any halfs so cant really say on those).

Two years ago, I hired an online coach who ramped me up to 35-40 miles a week.  For that first year I ran between 35-50 miles a week, with a good 2-3 month period where I ran 200 mile months consistently.  Also, in that year, I dropped like 2 minutes off my 5K and ran PRs in every other distance (including dropping almost 20 minutes off my half marathon time and 48 minutes off my marathon time).

So while it is the weekly mileage that adds up to yearly mileage that adds up to your total volume mileage, I think it is this total base over monhts and years that really makes the difference.

I too am working on getting the mileage up to 60-70 this year, but I do tend to have injuries when I get up that high for some reason.

Best of luck

Jeff

First my personal testimonial:  In early 2009 I decided to start a progression to a larger base of almost totally easy mileage.  By Fall I was in the neighborhood of 40mpw, run in a nice spread throughout the week.  I PRed in the 5K three times in a row, the half marathon twice in three weeks and had a <40/PR in the 10K.  I crushed times that I had achieved doing lower mileage with more speed work.

Okay, having established my personal bias: Races, even 5Ks, are essentially endurance events.  We can all run faster than we do in any race, but we can't maintain that speed for 3.1, 6.2 or 26.2 miles.  When running more mileage, the body makes a lot of adaptations that favor greater endurance.  The ability of the body to deliver oxygen where it's needed improves, the heart gets stronger, capillaries grow, etc.  The ability to store and metabolize glycogen improves, providing quicker, more enduring fuel.  This all comes with mileage run at just about any pace.  As endurance improves, we can run faster for longer distances.

So why run slow?  Well the big reasons are to avoid injury and burnout.  Running hard pounds your legs more and tires your muscles out more.  Any gains that may be made by doing so much speed are outweighed by the problems it can cause.  A couple of hard workouts per week will balance the whole risk:benefit ratio better than all hard efforts.  There is also a school of thought that certain adaptations will only take place at an easier effort (lower heart rate, more specifically)... I don't really know the science behind that so I can't speak to it or vouch for it, but it is worth looking into if you're curious.

If you have iTunes, check out the "Brainstuff" podcast from howstuffworks.com.  There was a recent episode entitled "Why can't a couch potato run a marathon?" that gets into the physiological changes that come from increased activity.