I wonder how much doing core work prevents injury. My first few injuries were due to my core being weak. My PT made me do a bunch of core and that fixed my problems. I don't do as much core work now as I did then, but it hasn't seemed to hurt me. Most the people I know most of the people who do a boatload of miles do a bunch of core work. Of course everyone is different.

Mine is always weak hips.  Always!  Bad back?  Weak hips.  ITBS?  Weak hips.   Adductor tendonitis?  Weak hips.

I either have the worst hip muscles ever, or my PT only knows one set of exercises lol

Let me guess. They give you a resistance band and make you do this a lot.

 

Mine is always weak hips.  Always!  Bad back?  Weak hips.  ITBS?  Weak hips.   Adductor tendonitis?  Weak hips.

 

I either have the worst hip muscles ever, or my PT only knows one set of exercises lol

I don't think anyone's saying people are getting injured because of low mileage. And I don't think there's any dispute that higher mileage puts more stress on your body, and on average may make you more susceptible to injuries. Or that anyone who runs is likely to get injured at some point. I think the main point is that you cannot create a single rule that applies to everyone.

I know I wasn't.

I haven't open that thread once but I bet the majority of those responders are NOT high mileage or even moderate mileage runners. That most are low mileage runners. True, everyone has a mileage ceiling after which point they either break down or their running peformance suffers. * For a variety of reasons that could very well be 25 mpw or less. I was simply countering the comment about "... a study where 28mpw seems to be where bad things can happen." My point was that I do not believe this is due to exceding that point but related to individual choices made as you ramp up or physical pre-conditions.

I required more recovery time at 25 running 900 mpy than I do at 56 running 3000. This was due to how recklessly I tended to train back then and part`ly due to the large aerobic base I've built over the years but no one needs to run 30 years to accomplish this end. While individual results may vary, it could be largely done in 2-5 years.

I would contend that higher mileage not only builds the pathways to directly create the adaptations for a wicked aerobic base but makes your connective tissue more resilient to the stress associated with running. Naturally, not everyone is built to handle the stress of running even if their weight is normal. If you're overweight well, that alone could be the problem, not higher mileage.

* Following my PB mileage year I reduced mileage by 10-15% and enjoyed two of my best racing years [in my mid-50's]. Another benefit to high mileage was lowering my cholesterol and getting my weight to within 5 lbs of my mid-80's self.

 

Hey Red, I'm right there with you.  I only use the term anemic in reference to some of the high mileage folks on here (lily, moth, you know who you are).  I've always felt 25 was the nice point at which you got the maximum gain for the least amount of effort.  I can get close to PR (OK - Fat Old Man PRs) with 25 miles per week.  The only time I go beyond that is when I get this marathon nonsense in my head.  Then I feel compelled to get up to 40 or 45 (and even at that to be ridiculed by he who shall not be named).

 

So, I guess I would consider my keep running for a few more years normal would be run 4 or 5 days a week, average about 25 miles, with a long run in the 8 to 10 range.

Here's a little anecdotal perspective on what can be accomplished at different mileage levels.

When I first started running (age 21 and fairly active), it took be about 3 months to get to the 25-30 mpw level. I ran my first 10K (actually 6.6 miles, but I'll treat it as a 10K for illustrative purposes) in 39:30. By this time I had also run a 4:55 mile. Based on other runs I expect my 5K time would have been around 19:00. Those probably sound like really fast times and bumping up the mileage wouldn't do a whole lot to improve that. Fast forward 3-4 years to when I'm running 65-70 mpw. Now look at my PRs: mile - 4:41, 5K - 16:22, 10K - 35:12.

That change in performance is not limited to young, active runners. Fast forward again to when I'm in my early 60s. Now I'm running 20-25 mpw and my 5K time is 25:43. Move forward 5 months and I've increased my mileage to 40 mpw. My 5K time dropped to 22:56. Along the way my 10K time dropped from 52:22 on 30-35 mpw to 49:08. I wouldn't have even considered trying to race 10K on 20-25 mpw.

Were there diminishing returns as I increased mileage? Of course. Each incremental improvement required more than the previous. In my younger days I was still getting enough improvement up to 70 mpw for me to run that much. Now I'm still showing enough improvement at 40 mpw to consider increasing that even more. I think it's a matter of what you feel capable of doing and whether you're satisfied with your level of performance. Not everyone is fanatical or devoted enough to running to push themselves like I did in my 20s and 30s or has the time and interest to push themselves like I'm trying to do now that I'm semi-retired.