One of the mistakes I often see runners make when understanding the need for increased volume is the latency in seeing those results. Meaning, they'll put in the work at higher mileage, and not see the results in racing following that increase. Then they'll reduce their mileage, race better, and attribute those better results to them "not being cutout for high mileage". But in reality, all that work took months to appear and there's a direct correlation between the two. So my point is mileage isn't magic, and that can be frustrating when time and effort are made to put in that additional work. But consistency and patience WILL pay off.
@@mikevaldez7684 Science tells us a lot of things but this is a specific case and there are a lot of variables going into running performance. You should learn how to communicate with people without insulting them when you disagree. This will help you a lot in life. All the best.
A long time fan, Steve - the Science of Running is a fantastic 'refernece book'. I refer to your book almost on a weekly bases. A 63 year old, high milage runner, I love this video!! Last year, I ran 3700 plus miles (ave 71 per week), 52 races from 1500 to 100k. Similar in distance and races in 2023. The only injury in 2024 was from a Steeplechase in Sweden - calf strain. 2024, ran 4 marathons in a span of 36 days, Berlin-Wineglass-Chicago-NY; 3 sub 3:00, Wineglass, 3:13 which I paced someone. My best Mile was 5:10 on 90 mile week, Comrades Marathon (up-run) 8hr10 min.
Thanks for another great video. The Strava analysis is especially interesting. I ran a lot in my 30s and then sporadically until last year, when I started running regularly again at age 67. After 6 months I was at 40 miles a week for 3-4 months and had some good (for me) races but I didn't have the work/recovery balance right and got injured. This week is first 40 miler in 6 months. I'll probably use cross training to build on that for a while before trying to increase running miles. I am doing strength training and that has helped a lot.
This is gold. Thanks Steve. Possibly brisk walking is the best form of cross training to retain fitness following injury because it is lower impact than running but shares many of the same movement biomechanics?
Mileage works. I took my 5k from 20:30 to 19 flat in two months by bringing it from 40mpw to 55 as a 30 year-old woman and improved at every distance down to 100 meters. I still did speed work, tempos, progressive long runs, and Fartlek but the sessions didn’t have to be complicated or grueling.
Would love to hear a discussion of middle distance training. How is that athletes in the mile can be wildly successful which such drastically different forms of training? A question that seems to be asked quite frequently but never answered with much research or nuance.
Awesome video, I’ve followed you on instagram for a while. It’s nice to see you speak in an entertaining manner, nothing worse than finding an interesting sounding podcast only to find they speak in a monotone mumble.
It would be interesting to hear those same initial stats about volume vs marathon time expressed in hours because the variables are a bit confounding, i.e. faster people are going to do more weekly miles in a week by virtue of being faster at the same relative intensity, so in those terms its a bit less meaningful.
Thanks for the video. Especially the thoughts about cross training. Do you see a 60-minute bike ride at the same HR as a low intensity 60-minute run as a 1:1 substitute? If not that, how would you count it? Thanks!
Another banger, Steve. Do you have suggestions for how to estimate "mileage" for cross training or in my case, mountain running? I feel that "time on feet" could work well to add to a weekly goal, rather than strict mileage -- esp. if I don't have a distance specific goal in mind, like a marathon. This does still take into account specific workouts will be done (the long run, strides, etc). My weekly mileage can be low when compared to even a recreational marathon runner, as merely 6 miles can take 2 hours if there's a whole mountain in my way!
Great video. Thanks so much for sharing. Love your books and content. I understand a bit better now how I managed to run a 2:41 marathon (on quite harsh conditions) only running 80 to 100km a week.
I would have preferred to see the study look at amount of time running vs mileage. The difference is less pronounced when you estimate easy running pace: 2.5-3 hour marathon runners (80 miles per week) spend approximately 9.16 hours per week running. 3.5-4 hour marathon runners (45 miles per week) spend approximately 6.87 hours per week running
They did look at volume in terms of time when comparing Zone 1,2,3. The difference was still very large and significant. For example, sub 2:30 runners got about 350 minutes of easy running a week, compared to 3 to 3:30 getting 140min, and 4hr+ getting ~110min. So even by time, it's a huge differential.
@@SteveMagnessI can see from the comments that your listeners are not academically very astute; they lack the critical thinking skills & academic education to comprehend and parse this data you share.
@@SteveMagnessYou're going to need to put in the work & present graphs the way Jack Daniels did so these listeners will be able to "get" what you're saying - just like a classroom lecture.
Thank you very informative. I did notice the same thing, all the best, fast runners, and I'm referring Iin particular to normal people, amateurs runners and so on,.. they basically all do a lot of milage, more than 50 miles per week.. almost nobody can run a marathon under 3 hours with just 30-40 km per week.. By adding volume you have the opportunity to train all the CRCUCIAL systems , zone 2, threshold, and vo2max especially. I went from 3 runs per week(20-25 ish miles) to 4 adding milage(30-35 miles), a long run(at least 12 miles) each week and i was able to improve my H.M time by almost 10 minutes in less than a year
I wonder if according to what you're saying.... is if you did something like 6 intense weeks to start it off with a bang, then transition to the easy zone 2 etc....
Good stuff, thank you Have a question - how to determine what is good / optimal high (top) milege for individual - with assumptions : - time is not restricted - body can handle it repeatedly week in week injury free - interested mostly in distances marathon and above - started taking running more seriously 2y ago, now at age of 50yo and in 2 years been building milage slowly up - now at 60-70km per week - to make it easier lets take speed work out of aquasion for a moment... How to know if one is in his optimum milage range - without arbitrary number in mind ? Thank you 🙏
I live in a very hilly area and also need to go pretty slow to keep it in zone 2. So i need to think in terms of time not miles. Reading joe friel book "fast after 50" he seems to emphasise a good aerobic foundation yes, but the increased importance of higher intensity as you get older. Its all very confusing!
Hey Steve! I love your channel and I’ve ordered your book! 😊 I’m at around 90-100km per week. To get more mileage I will need to start doubling soon. I’m tighter for for time in the evenings. Will a 8km run make any difference?
Good video. Instead of doing 16 week marathon training, I do a 52 week program to have the accumulated volume required. I also reduce my injury risk significantly. I supplement with 2 days a week of cross training. 3 days of running. 1 speed session, 1 easy run, and 1 long run.
That's 8 days, a week has 7 days.😢 Secondly, you don't work, you just lay around between training sessions.😢 Get a job, you're not an elite, just a guy wasting his time😅
Hey sir I’ve recently stumbled upon your channel and it’s been a lot of good info! And if we can do video requests I’d love to see a deep dive into tendons for running and if there’s any transference from the distance running to top speed! As well as any info about building tendon resilience and rehabbing tendinitis!
Many good tips in the video. Just the point on no more than 10% increase/ week in mileage - for those who are frustrated because it might seem to take forever to get to where you aim for - we are looking at doubling your mileage/ week in 9 weeks (just over 2 months), so 25 miles/ week will become 50 miles/ week in 9 weeks, and if you continue in that trajectory, in another 9 weeks, you’ll be hitting 100 miles/ week. I believe that’s way too quick. 10% increase per week, if it is to be sustained, is too much in my opinion.
Agree it would be good to provide doubling period. Rule of 72 helps estimate doubling (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72) Number of periods to double mileage with 7% increase is about 10 weeks, with 5% increase is about 15 weeks. So for either of these cases, someone running 25 mi/wk could be running 100 mi/wk in 20 or 30 weeks, or about 6 months. Pretty reasonable if you are looking at building a base over years.
I am getting back into running and made a plan to, over the course of half a year, build from 10 to 35 mpw, all easy (for me, building the habit of running itself is my goal for now). t that point I’ll time trial to determine paces. If my goal is to bring down my 5k and mile times, do you suggest building up more easy volume from there, keep it and ramp up intensity, or a mix of both? I don’t mind ramping up mileage to 50 mpw before adding intensity (at first strides, then 400s session, and a tempo).
Interesting. I'm maintaining 1:35 - 1:40 shape at less than 20 km per week. I have never gone over 42 km in a single week in my life and my BP is 1:32. Guess I'm an outlier.
Hey! I read your initial book (Science of running) and wanted to know how similar is the new one to the former? I liked the first one but it mixed physiology and training together and I had the feeling it didn't either too well (either too detailed or in some parts lacking detail)
Great stuff! One question that came up for me is how does one's pace affect the accumulation of volume? Are there any benefits for a certain relative pace more than another? Or on the flip side could I get away with mostly running very slow?
For most, I'm a big believer in aiming for consistency with slight down weeks to take the edge off. So if you're consistent at 100 mpw, a down week would be 75-80ish. It varies. With more fast twitch athletes, a bigger down week to let them bounce back is sometimes better. There you might go from 80 down to 55
How about "cross training"? I ask because as an off-season triathlete focused on a spring marathon, I still put in 6+ hours of swim and bike time per week that surely benefits my running. But I haven't found a way to quantity that benefit to my run training and fitness. (Back when I was "only" 43, I ran a 3:00 marathon with a maximum of 45 mpw running, but very serious swimming and biking. So there's definitely a running fitness benefit, for me at least.)
That study you mentioned about the hit vs volume training, keep in mind that “volume” training was anything at or below 2nd threshold which is not what I would consider easy mileage.
They used a 3 zone model. Volume includes everything, all running. If you're talking about the comparison of easy running. They used zone 1. Zone 1 was defined as 82% of Critical speed, which roughly corresponds to anything slower than LT1, not LT2. So yes...it's generally what we'd classify as base building mileage, which includes everything from easy to steady. Or in the 5 zone model it roughly correlates to zone 1 and zone 2, which again is what we'd consider easy mileage.
The fastest i ever ran my LT1 was when i did 0 miles running but 15 hours on the bike a week! Beat out any of my dedicated running training which always got hampered by injury. Cross training works
Please respond and help a runner out! I watched the video on doubles as well and a common thread I see that wasnt identified was regarding speed and pace. I am not a fast runner by any stretch, and for me doubles came almost as a necessity because of having a slower pace. I may be running 70-80 mile weeks but the strain is far greater on slower athletes. A faster athlete could attain the same 70-80 miles a week that I do in far less time and could do more than I with potentially less doubles.. Elite athletes get to 90-100+ partly due to lower paces at that volume. You do bring up "life factors" but that isn't realistically the only larger factor. How does genetics play into this and the supposed "genetic max" we all supposedly have? I'd love to hear your take on this or have a video on it!
Does running volume matter less for SHORT distances (5, 10k)? Is there any difference? All these studies look at marathons.. I'd be curious to know what happens for shorter distances. (Might be covered later in the video - still watching) Thanks for the super informative content!
How would one define base maintenance volume based on age, current mileage and best executed marathon time in last two years. I ask this because I am struggling to find out an optimum mileage (not perfect) for base in winter. My peak was 50 miles. Would the general runner population be able to run under 4 hours with this mileage. Or am I undershooting base.
As an older athlete I subscribe to more junk miles as when i was younger and did the junk miles and that's when my speed opened up plus i was doing other sports that trained my legs for the distance.
It's a great question with no real answer. What we've noticed recently is that: Cross-training transfers better to performance than it has in the past. The reason why I believe is the super shoes. The downside to cross training is you get the central adaptations but not the specific ones. One of which is the increase efficiency/economy that comes with putting in the miles...BUT the super shoes improve economy. So...it makes it where it's not as much of a limiting factor.
@@SteveMagnessinteresting. probably new things we are learning like nutrition etc are also adding to this. i find it so interesting that David was able to break the Leadville course record with 55-75 miles per week and a lot of cross training. Perhaps it translates better for ultras given you’re typically in a lower HR zone that other cross training may help more with. appreciate your response!
This is really great and interesting content. I just wonder if it's more beneficial to think of volume as time on feet than miles. A normal person could do a 2 hour long run but only cover 10 miles. An elite could probably do a 20 mile long run in 2 hours (I know these numbers don't exactly work, but it's just to illustrate the idea). From a physiological perspective, wouldn't these two have run the same workout? Your body doesn't know how many miles you ran, just how long and how hard you worked (assuming both athletes were working at the same intensity). If this is true, wouldn't some of the 50 mile per week slow runners be a lot closer to the 100 mile a week elite runners in terms of volume that isn't reflected in mileage?
Think only elite that runs just 2 - 3 times a week is Parker Valby, with just 30 miles a week But granted, she cross trains on the arc trainer very intensely once to twice a day instead of easy running everyday
The best thing to get faster is variation in training. And a mileage you body can handle. If you’re use to 120km weeks then go week 1. 80km 3-4 runs in 5-10k pace, and the rest is easy runs. 7 running workouts. 2. 120k 3 runs in half marathon threshold pace, hill workout. The rest is easy runs. 8 running workouts 3. 140km easy runs and if you need some speed just don’t run faster then marathon pace. 9-10 running workouts. That’s a good way if you’re working fulltime then you know and can plan for the hard week. And the variation makes a better progres. If you live in a coold country like my runners then find a indoor or treadmill for the harder runs. And easy run (recovery jogg) is usually 180-age (Long slow distance) that’s usually what most runners do wrong. And it’s why lots of runners gets overtrained.
I say for 80% of hobby athletes more volume is not an option. They have a given time budget and thats it. Don't overemphasize the value of a marathon time for a hobby athlete. Being able to run 10k reasonably quick in say 50min is more than most people ever need in their life. Pro runners have other priorities of course.
I really want to know how this applies to someone who does other sports, say a triathlete who can sustain 40-50 km of running per week, on top of 7-8 hours of cycling? Should someone like that be pushing themselves to run an additional 20 km per week to break 3 hours in the marathon, or are they getting enough aerobic volume from cycling?
Cycling broke my run i was at 1:40 half, took a cycling challenge did 350 miles for a month did 20 miles daily for about 15 days, but my run crashed into the 2 hour range.
You presented science for elite, high volume athletes. How do we know how well the percentages apply to someone running 40mpw vs 100? If we use the 80/20 principle, for example, someone running 100mpw is going to do 20mpw of intensity. That’s a lot. At 40mpw, that’s only 8 of intensity, possibly a single tempo run. How do you know that, beyond a beginner level, we don’t improve more with a minimum volume of intensity first, then adding easy above that? I’m not necessarily doubting, but questioning.
80/20 is just a general rule of thumb. It was developed by observing elite and semi-elite training. It loses it's power at the extreme. AND it is based on SESSION number not MPW. So if you run 8 times a week, that's 2 hard sessions. If you only run 4 times a week, that's 1 session. As to your last question. Two reasons: We have a 100+ years of training history (see my video on that) where people experimented with volume/intensity combinations and what to do first or last. The major breakthroughs came when an aerobic foundation was built. Second, there have been a few studies that took participants and either put them through X weeks of intensity first, then volume, or vice versa. And the results show volume them intensity led to better results. I discuss this in my book The Science of Running.
@@SteveMagness Thanks for the quick response. However, it doesn't really address my question. Let me try again. First, I used 80/20 as an example, not as a rigid rule. Whether it's sessions or distance/time, given an aerobic foundation, is there a minimum threshold of intensity one needs or benefits more from than adding more easy volume? This is not intensity first vs volume or vice versa, but adding additional intensity atop a solid aerobic base before adding additional volume?
That is a very good question and needs to be highlighted when explaining data I recommend to think in terms of quality sessions. How many can you add in your routine. 80/20 for a 5 day runner would be one. I would argue that you can do 2 sessions instead because you can, and will stimulate your body more
@@adamfeerst2575In terms of marathoning, where I think Lydiard lacked was in the area of specific demand for specific race distances. I feel it’s been more recent where we realized there needs to be a higher percentage of work done at goal marathon race pace, especially within our long runs to meet the race demands. If we lack these race specific adaptations it won’t matter how high the easy volume gets. I am sure you have heard the phrase long slow runs make long slow runners and this applies here. To summarize, if your body can handle higher volume and it doesn’t adversely affect your workouts than by all means increase your mileage and you will likely see value from that but if you are lacking that close to 20% of race specific work than the volume won’t fill that void for you entirely.
@@WS-mimic If you're talking about where to add first, the point is that if you start at, say, 40 mpw, and you want to improve, that increasing mileage does more than increasing intensity. Not that you should never increase it, but the bigger th le base, the higher the peak.
As someone has mentioned in another comment, it is comparatively different between the 70-80 MPW of 3.5-4 hours marathoners' between 3-3.5 (or faster). The time on feet is different. This creates some kind of paradox. In order to run faster one need to run more (1). To run more (2), one need to run faster. It took me a WHILE to be able to at peace with this paradox. I understand it as two different related variables. It xan be interpreted as a multiple YEARS of accumulated time on foot. Its a slowly accumulated aerobic adaptation that is built close to, or over a decade. The other interpretation is a measure of short term exposure (talking about a less then a year or a little bit more, maybe) for an optimal race output. These two are presented often interchangeable during an explanation, including in this video. For example, you say you can only run (now) for 40 MPW and your current marathon performance is so and so. However, in other subject, maybe you refer to the nurtured ability and aerobic adaptation as MPW. Hope that make sense to some.
I get it. But even when compare total time and NOT MPW, the difference is stark. As they did in the aforementioned study. Sub 2:30 runners are spending 2.5 amount of time running easy compared to 3:30+ runners. It's not about needing to run faster. Step one is often accumulating more time, even if that's really slow! Start with frequency.
@SteveMagness Yes. I ended up with the same conclusion. Accumulate time, slowly, consistently, while minimalizing injury risk, overtime, for a LONG time.
You said someone coming from a speed background needs more speed, while someone coming from an endurance background needs more volume. How do we know that? If I’m an endurance guy, for example, there are diminishing returns beyond a certain level. Is there science that talks about training weaknesses versus strengths? If I don’t respond as well to X vs Y, at some point, shouldn’t I focus more on X, at least for a block, knowing that I won’t lose much Y in a maintenance phase?
I discuss the theory in my book THe Science of RUnning. It's individualizing based on whether you are more fast twitch or slow twitch orientated for an event. A recent study came out to validate this approach: www.outsideonline.com/health/training-performance/muscle-fiber-type/ Of course, there''s nuance here. In that we need to shore up our weaknesses, and work ont he kink in the pipe as it changes.
Also curious about this question - seems counterintuitive to focus on what is already a strength rather than improving the weakness. Thanks for making these amazing videos and for taking time to respond to questions Steve!
@@SteveMagness Thx for the response. Hutchinson’s article is primarily about which type of muscle fibers are predominant. It doesn’t address when, how, and how much a predominant runner of of one type benefits from more of the same versus training the other type. I’ll get your book and see what I learn there. Is it theory, or are there actual studies thataddress this?
I think people seeing the chart you presented, should keep in mind a few things. With around 37 miles/60 km per week the females are getting sub 3, 9-12 weeks before race. Looks like Strava data agrees with this...around 42 miles/week to get sub 3. I'd say maybe if training for several years and high level of fitness, then its possible. I don't see this applying to the general population whose goal it is to go sub 3 even after couple years. Am I wrong?
Volume makes a significant difference...I get it. The question is, how to optimize the training to get equivalent gain with the least volume/time without blindly piling on milage.
The main problem I have with these Strava statistics is that they are not reliable. Too many users don’t log every single run for various reasons. And who is to believe the average 3 hour marathoner gets by with 40 or 50 km a week?
Whether we look at strava data (which is filtered to eliminate those who obviously don't run most runs) or survey data, it still shows that recreational runners don't run much at all.
Oh! And I don't know if you actually talked about junk miles. I'm guessing that's a "no" as you're suggesting building up mileage via low intensity at volume.
it doesnt take long to increase mileage if you add 10% per week. Starting at 25 miles p/w, in 7-8 weeks you will be up to 50miles, and in 15 weeks up to 100miles
Dont like that chart volume and finish time, i would like to see volume in TIME, not kms. Elites have easy run 4min/km but hobby end of chart ppl can have 7min/km. Also would be good to see their "quality volume"
Most learners are a combination of visual & auditory processors; consequently, even though you believe the info is simple, your listeners are having a hard time assimilating it as is evidenced by the comments 😢
Ha. I had it down to talk about...but missed it. That's what happens when you do 1 take videos. I'll add it to a future one. But no...junk miles aren't a thing.
Of course, but this is largely controlled for by using a very large dataset. And they also had selection criteria within that dataset to control for that.
It would be interesting to compare volume of running as time spent running rather than what everyone (including you here) does as distance run. As a slower runner, 150km a week of running took me about 3-3.5 hours a day, whereas for an elite, that would take them maybe 1.5-2 hours a day, assuming we're both working in the same relative heartrate zone. If it's all about time in the zone, I'm working way harder than them. If it's about distance covered, we're doing the same. Sure I got excellent results from that training block, but it's apples to oranges comparison
Again, the research compared time in zones as well...And when you look at time spent EASY running, the sub 2:30 still spend 2.5x as much time running easy as the 3hr+. Yes, using time instead of miles makes a small difference. But the gulf is so huge, that if you use minutes, it's still giant.
@@SteveMagnessthe way you're talking, all I need to do is run 80+km a week to get below 3 hour marathon. However I did 14 weeks of over 100km a week for my last marathon block and ended with a 5:40. I've gone up to 150km a week and as low as 50km a week and my best time is 4:49. I'm within the normal weight range and I'm 42. I've run 15 marathons over the last 12 years. My point is the extreme assurance with which your speaking is great I guess, but doesn't work for me. I can't speak for anyone else. It just rubs wrong when you're so sure of your numbers, but they're just not always close to reality for some of us.
@ mostly zone 2 with one or two faster ones a week. Mainly long intervals or threshold work. Plus I try to get 10-20 wind sprints in across the course of the week
The study mentioned looked at female athletes as well. Same result. From a historical standpoint, we can see greater trends because of the length of time of elite M vs. F competition.
Where's the study that compares athletes doing the two hard workouts and one long run that Shorter recommended but not doing all the easy runs, and those doing it all? In this review what we see is a study showing accumulated mileage for elites over periods of up to 7 years. We didn't see any comparison with the alternative of less volume/fuller recovery in between those two hard sessions and the long run. Of course, the more mileage you've accumulated, the more you are able to run, but maybe someone who leaves out the easy runs, reduces mileage, and does the hard runs a little harder, the long run a bit longer would also perform at the same level, or perhaps even better.
We have a century of training history to show that isn't the case. I also cover the couple studies that do similar manipulations to those suggested in my book Science of Running. You need a certain amount of volume to maximize performance, and you can't short cut your way there by running harder workouts. It's why even the more successful interval based coaches like Igloi, had a high volume of accumulated load with a large number of the intervals serving as easy training.
@@SteveMagness Does a century of training history constitute science? Before Galileo we had how many millennia of certainty that the earth was the center of the universe? I'm going to remain skeptical until you show me the studies that really prove the claim. In the spirit of science, I'd say that it's quite possible that there could be a whole lot of junk mileage being run just because that's the way we've been doing it for a century.
@@Avianthrowatch Steve’s history of training video. There you will find the answers to your questions. The race results and the athletes training plans are the documented science. If you think there was a minuscule chance that your theory that dropping the volume of slow miles might improve results- today’s elites would be doing it - and they aren’t.
One of the mistakes I often see runners make when understanding the need for increased volume is the latency in seeing those results. Meaning, they'll put in the work at higher mileage, and not see the results in racing following that increase. Then they'll reduce their mileage, race better, and attribute those better results to them "not being cutout for high mileage". But in reality, all that work took months to appear and there's a direct correlation between the two.
So my point is mileage isn't magic, and that can be frustrating when time and effort are made to put in that additional work. But consistency and patience WILL pay off.
But in reality all that work too months to appear, you say. How do you know this to be reality?
Kinda but it does depend on the timeframe and experience.
Your example does reproduce some effects of taper and load Adaptation.
@@NyelandsThe science tells us. Learn to read, then go buy some books, if you can afford it 😢
@@mikevaldez7684 Science tells us a lot of things but this is a specific case and there are a lot of variables going into running performance. You should learn how to communicate with people without insulting them when you disagree. This will help you a lot in life. All the best.
A long time fan, Steve - the Science of Running is a fantastic 'refernece book'. I refer to your book almost on a weekly bases. A 63 year old, high milage runner, I love this video!! Last year, I ran 3700 plus miles (ave 71 per week), 52 races from 1500 to 100k. Similar in distance and races in 2023. The only injury in 2024 was from a Steeplechase in Sweden - calf strain. 2024, ran 4 marathons in a span of 36 days, Berlin-Wineglass-Chicago-NY; 3 sub 3:00, Wineglass, 3:13 which I paced someone. My best Mile was 5:10 on 90 mile week, Comrades Marathon (up-run) 8hr10 min.
THanks so much! And congrats on your success. That's fantastic.
WOW! A 5:10 mile at age 63 is equal to an age graded 4:06 mile which is world class.
Another banger ! You’re quickly becoming my favorite running channel
Appreciate it! Glad you like the content.
I once heard an old seasoned runner say, “There’s magic in the miles.” I have found that to be true in the 16+ years I’ve been running
Exactly!
Indeed. To quote John L. Parker Jr., there is no secret. Simply the trial of miles.
@@wvu05this is gold. So simple. I screenshot this comment & will adopt it.
Thanks for another great video. The Strava analysis is especially interesting. I ran a lot in my 30s and then sporadically until last year, when I started running regularly again at age 67. After 6 months I was at 40 miles a week for 3-4 months and had some good (for me) races but I didn't have the work/recovery balance right and got injured. This week is first 40 miler in 6 months. I'll probably use cross training to build on that for a while before trying to increase running miles. I am doing strength training and that has helped a lot.
This is gold. Thanks Steve. Possibly brisk walking is the best form of cross training to retain fitness following injury because it is lower impact than running but shares many of the same movement biomechanics?
Mileage works. I took my 5k from 20:30 to 19 flat in two months by bringing it from 40mpw to 55 as a 30 year-old woman and improved at every distance down to 100 meters. I still did speed work, tempos, progressive long runs, and Fartlek but the sessions didn’t have to be complicated or grueling.
Did you by chance change your race shoes to super shoes?
Would love to hear a discussion of middle distance training. How is that athletes in the mile can be wildly successful which such drastically different forms of training? A question that seems to be asked quite frequently but never answered with much research or nuance.
So great. No fluff straight common sense talk backed up with data. Picking up my copy of Win the inside game
Awesome video, I’ve followed you on instagram for a while. It’s nice to see you speak in an entertaining manner, nothing worse than finding an interesting sounding podcast only to find they speak in a monotone mumble.
I appreciate that!
It would be interesting to hear those same initial stats about volume vs marathon time expressed in hours because the variables are a bit confounding, i.e. faster people are going to do more weekly miles in a week by virtue of being faster at the same relative intensity, so in those terms its a bit less meaningful.
Great point!!!
Thanks for the video. Especially the thoughts about cross training. Do you see a 60-minute bike ride at the same HR as a low intensity 60-minute run as a 1:1 substitute? If not that, how would you count it? Thanks!
Another banger, Steve. Do you have suggestions for how to estimate "mileage" for cross training or in my case, mountain running? I feel that "time on feet" could work well to add to a weekly goal, rather than strict mileage -- esp. if I don't have a distance specific goal in mind, like a marathon. This does still take into account specific workouts will be done (the long run, strides, etc). My weekly mileage can be low when compared to even a recreational marathon runner, as merely 6 miles can take 2 hours if there's a whole mountain in my way!
Great video. Thanks so much for sharing.
Love your books and content. I understand a bit better now how I managed to run a 2:41 marathon (on quite harsh conditions) only running 80 to 100km a week.
Glad it was helpful!
You have given a lot. Great information again. Loving the videos. Thank you
I would have preferred to see the study look at amount of time running vs mileage.
The difference is less pronounced when you estimate easy running pace:
2.5-3 hour marathon runners (80 miles per week) spend approximately 9.16 hours per week running.
3.5-4 hour marathon runners (45 miles per week) spend approximately 6.87 hours per week running
They did look at volume in terms of time when comparing Zone 1,2,3. The difference was still very large and significant.
For example, sub 2:30 runners got about 350 minutes of easy running a week, compared to 3 to 3:30 getting 140min, and 4hr+ getting ~110min.
So even by time, it's a huge differential.
@@SteveMagnessI can see from the comments that your listeners are not academically very astute; they lack the critical thinking skills & academic education to comprehend and parse this data you share.
@@SteveMagnessYou're going to need to put in the work & present graphs the way Jack Daniels did so these listeners will be able to "get" what you're saying - just like a classroom lecture.
Thank you for this helpful video. I learned we are all different and I need to listen to my body. God bless you richly.
Thank you very informative. I did notice the same thing, all the best, fast runners, and I'm referring Iin particular to normal people, amateurs runners and so on,.. they basically all do a lot of milage, more than 50 miles per week.. almost nobody can run a marathon under 3 hours with just 30-40 km per week.. By adding volume you have the opportunity to train all the CRCUCIAL systems , zone 2, threshold, and vo2max especially. I went from 3 runs per week(20-25 ish miles) to 4 adding milage(30-35 miles), a long run(at least 12 miles) each week and i was able to improve my H.M time by almost 10 minutes in less than a year
I wonder if according to what you're saying.... is if you did something like 6 intense weeks to start it off with a bang, then transition to the easy zone 2 etc....
Excellent video.
Your all the videos are backed by science.
Thanks Steve ❤
Appreciate the support!
Good stuff, thank you
Have a question - how to determine what is good / optimal high (top) milege for individual - with assumptions :
- time is not restricted
- body can handle it repeatedly week in week injury free
- interested mostly in distances marathon and above
- started taking running more seriously 2y ago, now at age of 50yo and in 2 years been building milage slowly up - now at 60-70km per week
- to make it easier lets take speed work out of aquasion for a moment...
How to know if one is in his optimum milage range - without arbitrary number in mind ?
Thank you 🙏
I live in a very hilly area and also need to go pretty slow to keep it in zone 2. So i need to think in terms of time not miles. Reading joe friel book "fast after 50" he seems to emphasise a good aerobic foundation yes, but the increased importance of higher intensity as you get older. Its all very confusing!
Thanks. First book was awesome. Pre ordered the new book!
Awesome! I hope you enjoy it.
Great discussion; thank you very much!
You're welcome!
Hey Steve! I love your channel and I’ve ordered your book! 😊 I’m at around 90-100km per week. To get more mileage I will need to start doubling soon. I’m tighter for for time in the evenings. Will a 8km run make any difference?
What I would do is run the 8km at the lower end of your easy zone to maximise time spent running, especially on short runs.
Hi Steve. Could you please provide the link of the study you presented on the top left of the screen at around 1min on your video?
Good video. Instead of doing 16 week marathon training, I do a 52 week program to have the accumulated volume required. I also reduce my injury risk significantly. I supplement with 2 days a week of cross training. 3 days of running. 1 speed session, 1 easy run, and 1 long run.
That's 8 days, a week has 7 days.😢 Secondly, you don't work, you just lay around between training sessions.😢 Get a job, you're not an elite, just a guy wasting his time😅
That was very informative, thank you 👍
Hey sir I’ve recently stumbled upon your channel and it’s been a lot of good info! And if we can do video requests I’d love to see a deep dive into tendons for running and if there’s any transference from the distance running to top speed! As well as any info about building tendon resilience and rehabbing tendinitis!
Great suggestion!
Another excellent video. How does maintaining high mileage fit with periodization?
What are your thoughts on making training adjustments (mileage and intensity) for Masters athletes?
Yeah Steve...let's not be completely age biased :) what have you got for us 60/70 + competitive runners?!!
I would love to hear Steve talk about this as well. Should/can we be running 70-80 miles per week to maximize marathon potential in our 40’s and 50’s?
Many good tips in the video. Just the point on no more than 10% increase/ week in mileage - for those who are frustrated because it might seem to take forever to get to where you aim for - we are looking at doubling your mileage/ week in 9 weeks (just over 2 months), so 25 miles/ week will become 50 miles/ week in 9 weeks, and if you continue in that trajectory, in another 9 weeks, you’ll be hitting 100 miles/ week. I believe that’s way too quick. 10% increase per week, if it is to be sustained, is too much in my opinion.
Yes, and its 200 miles per week after only 17 weeks. That seems like too much.
Agree it would be good to provide doubling period. Rule of 72 helps estimate doubling (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72)
Number of periods to double mileage with 7% increase is about 10 weeks, with 5% increase is about 15 weeks. So for either of these cases, someone running 25 mi/wk could be running 100 mi/wk in 20 or 30 weeks, or about 6 months. Pretty reasonable if you are looking at building a base over years.
I am getting back into running and made a plan to, over the course of half a year, build from 10 to 35 mpw, all easy (for me, building the habit of running itself is my goal for now). t that point I’ll time trial to determine paces. If my goal is to bring down my 5k and mile times, do you suggest building up more easy volume from there, keep it and ramp up intensity, or a mix of both? I don’t mind ramping up mileage to 50 mpw before adding intensity (at first strides, then 400s session, and a tempo).
I agree 100% more volume! Better performance! Bikila did, Gebre did, Kipchogue did and so on!
I love a youtube trainer. Volume is challenging for me. I run a half Marathon at 1.40 with 35 km pr week average.
Interesting. I'm maintaining 1:35 - 1:40 shape at less than 20 km per week. I have never gone over 42 km in a single week in my life and my BP is 1:32. Guess I'm an outlier.
Hey! I read your initial book (Science of running) and wanted to know how similar is the new one to the former? I liked the first one but it mixed physiology and training together and I had the feeling it didn't either too well (either too detailed or in some parts lacking detail)
Great stuff! One question that came up for me is how does one's pace affect the accumulation of volume? Are there any benefits for a certain relative pace more than another? Or on the flip side could I get away with mostly running very slow?
Incredible overview
Thanks so much@
another great video! About the down weeks, how much would you recommend lowering mileage?
Elite Marathon Build
4x 4 week micro cycles (16 weeks total)
2 weeks consistent (Ex. 80 miles)
1 week higher volume (90 miles)
1 week cut back by 1/3 of total volume and focus on quality/speed this week
For most, I'm a big believer in aiming for consistency with slight down weeks to take the edge off. So if you're consistent at 100 mpw, a down week would be 75-80ish.
It varies. With more fast twitch athletes, a bigger down week to let them bounce back is sometimes better. There you might go from 80 down to 55
@@SteveMagness thanks!
How about "cross training"? I ask because as an off-season triathlete focused on a spring marathon, I still put in 6+ hours of swim and bike time per week that surely benefits my running. But I haven't found a way to quantity that benefit to my run training and fitness. (Back when I was "only" 43, I ran a 3:00 marathon with a maximum of 45 mpw running, but very serious swimming and biking. So there's definitely a running fitness benefit, for me at least.)
That study you mentioned about the hit vs volume training, keep in mind that “volume” training was anything at or below 2nd threshold which is not what I would consider easy mileage.
They used a 3 zone model. Volume includes everything, all running.
If you're talking about the comparison of easy running. They used zone 1. Zone 1 was defined as 82% of Critical speed, which roughly corresponds to anything slower than LT1, not LT2.
So yes...it's generally what we'd classify as base building mileage, which includes everything from easy to steady. Or in the 5 zone model it roughly correlates to zone 1 and zone 2, which again is what we'd consider easy mileage.
The fastest i ever ran my LT1 was when i did 0 miles running but 15 hours on the bike a week! Beat out any of my dedicated running training which always got hampered by injury. Cross training works
Please respond and help a runner out! I watched the video on doubles as well and a common thread I see that wasnt identified was regarding speed and pace. I am not a fast runner by any stretch, and for me doubles came almost as a necessity because of having a slower pace. I may be running 70-80 mile weeks but the strain is far greater on slower athletes. A faster athlete could attain the same 70-80 miles a week that I do in far less time and could do more than I with potentially less doubles.. Elite athletes get to 90-100+ partly due to lower paces at that volume. You do bring up "life factors" but that isn't realistically the only larger factor. How does genetics play into this and the supposed "genetic max" we all supposedly have? I'd love to hear your take on this or have a video on it!
Does running volume matter less for SHORT distances (5, 10k)? Is there any difference? All these studies look at marathons.. I'd be curious to know what happens for shorter distances. (Might be covered later in the video - still watching) Thanks for the super informative content!
Related: how do you determine your "ideal" running volume if your goal is to improve speed at short distances?
How would one define base maintenance volume based on age, current mileage and best executed marathon time in last two years. I ask this because I am struggling to find out an optimum mileage (not perfect) for base in winter. My peak was 50 miles. Would the general runner population be able to run under 4 hours with this mileage. Or am I undershooting base.
What about volume for 1600-5k for developing HS runners?
As an older athlete I subscribe to more junk miles as when i was younger and did the junk miles and that's when my speed opened up plus i was doing other sports that trained my legs for the distance.
how effective is substituting easy mileage with cross training? eg. David Roche style training. it would be interesting to see a study on this.
It's a great question with no real answer. What we've noticed recently is that: Cross-training transfers better to performance than it has in the past. The reason why I believe is the super shoes. The downside to cross training is you get the central adaptations but not the specific ones. One of which is the increase efficiency/economy that comes with putting in the miles...BUT the super shoes improve economy. So...it makes it where it's not as much of a limiting factor.
@@SteveMagnessinteresting. probably new things we are learning like nutrition etc are also adding to this. i find it so interesting that David was able to break the Leadville course record with 55-75 miles per week and a lot of cross training. Perhaps it translates better for ultras given you’re typically in a lower HR zone that other cross training may help more with. appreciate your response!
Do you have a link to the strava-paper you talked about in the beginning
This is really great and interesting content. I just wonder if it's more beneficial to think of volume as time on feet than miles. A normal person could do a 2 hour long run but only cover 10 miles. An elite could probably do a 20 mile long run in 2 hours (I know these numbers don't exactly work, but it's just to illustrate the idea). From a physiological perspective, wouldn't these two have run the same workout? Your body doesn't know how many miles you ran, just how long and how hard you worked (assuming both athletes were working at the same intensity). If this is true, wouldn't some of the 50 mile per week slow runners be a lot closer to the 100 mile a week elite runners in terms of volume that isn't reflected in mileage?
I wad thinking the same. If I run with incline on the treadmill, I will get fewer miles in the same zone.
Think only elite that runs just 2 - 3 times a week is Parker Valby, with just 30 miles a week
But granted, she cross trains on the arc trainer very intensely once to twice a day instead of easy running everyday
The best thing to get faster is variation in training. And a mileage you body can handle. If you’re use to 120km weeks then go week
1. 80km 3-4 runs in 5-10k pace, and the rest is easy runs. 7 running workouts.
2. 120k 3 runs in half marathon threshold pace, hill workout. The rest is easy runs. 8 running workouts
3. 140km easy runs and if you need some speed just don’t run faster then marathon pace. 9-10 running workouts.
That’s a good way if you’re working fulltime then you know and can plan for the hard week. And the variation makes a better progres. If you live in a coold country like my runners then find a indoor or treadmill for the harder runs. And easy run (recovery jogg) is usually 180-age (Long slow distance) that’s usually what most runners do wrong. And it’s why lots of runners gets overtrained.
I say for 80% of hobby athletes more volume is not an option. They have a given time budget and thats it. Don't overemphasize the value of a marathon time for a hobby athlete. Being able to run 10k reasonably quick in say 50min is more than most people ever need in their life.
Pro runners have other priorities of course.
I really want to know how this applies to someone who does other sports, say a triathlete who can sustain 40-50 km of running per week, on top of 7-8 hours of cycling? Should someone like that be pushing themselves to run an additional 20 km per week to break 3 hours in the marathon, or are they getting enough aerobic volume from cycling?
Cycling broke my run i was at 1:40 half, took a cycling challenge did 350 miles for a month did 20 miles daily for about 15 days, but my run crashed into the 2 hour range.
You presented science for elite, high volume athletes. How do we know how well the percentages apply to someone running 40mpw vs 100? If we use the 80/20 principle, for example, someone running 100mpw is going to do 20mpw of intensity. That’s a lot. At 40mpw, that’s only 8 of intensity, possibly a single tempo run. How do you know that, beyond a beginner level, we don’t improve more with a minimum volume of intensity first, then adding easy above that? I’m not necessarily doubting, but questioning.
80/20 is just a general rule of thumb. It was developed by observing elite and semi-elite training. It loses it's power at the extreme.
AND it is based on SESSION number not MPW. So if you run 8 times a week, that's 2 hard sessions. If you only run 4 times a week, that's 1 session.
As to your last question. Two reasons: We have a 100+ years of training history (see my video on that) where people experimented with volume/intensity combinations and what to do first or last. The major breakthroughs came when an aerobic foundation was built.
Second, there have been a few studies that took participants and either put them through X weeks of intensity first, then volume, or vice versa. And the results show volume them intensity led to better results. I discuss this in my book The Science of Running.
@@SteveMagness Thanks for the quick response. However, it doesn't really address my question. Let me try again.
First, I used 80/20 as an example, not as a rigid rule. Whether it's sessions or distance/time, given an aerobic foundation, is there a minimum threshold of intensity one needs or benefits more from than adding more easy volume? This is not intensity first vs volume or vice versa, but adding additional intensity atop a solid aerobic base before adding additional volume?
That is a very good question and needs to be highlighted when explaining data
I recommend to think in terms of quality sessions. How many can you add in your routine.
80/20 for a 5 day runner would be one. I would argue that you can do 2 sessions instead because you can, and will stimulate your body more
@@adamfeerst2575In terms of marathoning, where I think Lydiard lacked was in the area of specific demand for specific race distances. I feel it’s been more recent where we realized there needs to be a higher percentage of work done at goal marathon race pace, especially within our long runs to meet the race demands. If we lack these race specific adaptations it won’t matter how high the easy volume gets. I am sure you have heard the phrase long slow runs make long slow runners and this applies here.
To summarize, if your body can handle higher volume and it doesn’t adversely affect your workouts than by all means increase your mileage and you will likely see value from that but if you are lacking that close to 20% of race specific work than the volume won’t fill that void for you entirely.
@@WS-mimic If you're talking about where to add first, the point is that if you start at, say, 40 mpw, and you want to improve, that increasing mileage does more than increasing intensity. Not that you should never increase it, but the bigger th le base, the higher the peak.
As someone has mentioned in another comment, it is comparatively different between the 70-80 MPW of 3.5-4 hours marathoners' between 3-3.5 (or faster). The time on feet is different. This creates some kind of paradox. In order to run faster one need to run more (1). To run more (2), one need to run faster.
It took me a WHILE to be able to at peace with this paradox. I understand it as two different related variables. It xan be interpreted as a multiple YEARS of accumulated time on foot. Its a slowly accumulated aerobic adaptation that is built close to, or over a decade. The other interpretation is a measure of short term exposure (talking about a less then a year or a little bit more, maybe) for an optimal race output.
These two are presented often interchangeable during an explanation, including in this video.
For example, you say you can only run (now) for 40 MPW and your current marathon performance is so and so. However, in other subject, maybe you refer to the nurtured ability and aerobic adaptation as MPW.
Hope that make sense to some.
I get it. But even when compare total time and NOT MPW, the difference is stark. As they did in the aforementioned study. Sub 2:30 runners are spending 2.5 amount of time running easy compared to 3:30+ runners.
It's not about needing to run faster. Step one is often accumulating more time, even if that's really slow! Start with frequency.
@SteveMagness Yes. I ended up with the same conclusion. Accumulate time, slowly, consistently, while minimalizing injury risk, overtime, for a LONG time.
You said someone coming from a speed background needs more speed, while someone coming from an endurance background needs more volume. How do we know that? If I’m an endurance guy, for example, there are diminishing returns beyond a certain level. Is there science that talks about training weaknesses versus strengths? If I don’t respond as well to X vs Y, at some point, shouldn’t I focus more on X, at least for a block, knowing that I won’t lose much Y in a maintenance phase?
I discuss the theory in my book THe Science of RUnning. It's individualizing based on whether you are more fast twitch or slow twitch orientated for an event. A recent study came out to validate this approach: www.outsideonline.com/health/training-performance/muscle-fiber-type/
Of course, there''s nuance here. In that we need to shore up our weaknesses, and work ont he kink in the pipe as it changes.
Also curious about this question - seems counterintuitive to focus on what is already a strength rather than improving the weakness. Thanks for making these amazing videos and for taking time to respond to questions Steve!
@@SteveMagness Thx for the response. Hutchinson’s article is primarily about which type of muscle fibers are predominant. It doesn’t address when, how, and how much a predominant runner of of one type benefits from more of the same versus training the other type. I’ll get your book and see what I learn there. Is it theory, or are there actual studies thataddress this?
What is your opinion on the Easy Interval Method by Klaas Lok?
It's a modern variation of Igloi. GOod to understand.
I think people seeing the chart you presented, should keep in mind a few things. With around 37 miles/60 km per week the females are getting sub 3, 9-12 weeks before race. Looks like Strava data agrees with this...around 42 miles/week to get sub 3. I'd say maybe if training for several years and high level of fitness, then its possible. I don't see this applying to the general population whose goal it is to go sub 3 even after couple years. Am I wrong?
Volume makes a significant difference...I get it. The question is, how to optimize the training to get equivalent gain with the least volume/time without blindly piling on milage.
steve my good friend and brother, the people are crying out for a video on double run days
Added to the list. You got it.
The main problem I have with these Strava statistics is that they are not reliable. Too many users don’t log
every single run for various reasons.
And who is to believe the average 3 hour marathoner gets by with 40 or 50 km a week?
Whether we look at strava data (which is filtered to eliminate those who obviously don't run most runs) or survey data, it still shows that recreational runners don't run much at all.
Oh! And I don't know if you actually talked about junk miles. I'm guessing that's a "no" as you're suggesting building up mileage via low intensity at volume.
Coros Training load at -10 - +10 of Maff Heart rate ez youll be a beast
it doesnt take long to increase mileage if you add 10% per week. Starting at 25 miles p/w, in 7-8 weeks you will be up to 50miles, and in 15 weeks up to 100miles
Interesting. But volume can be in time terms or distance terms. Maybe the slower people, because they are slower run less miles but still do the time.
Even if we evaluate based on time, slower runs spend 2.5x less time running easy. It's not just time.
Dont like that chart volume and finish time, i would like to see volume in TIME, not kms. Elites have easy run 4min/km but hobby end of chart ppl can have 7min/km. Also would be good to see their "quality volume"
All of those are covered in the study. The same trends hold with time.
Most learners are a combination of visual & auditory processors; consequently, even though you believe the info is simple, your listeners are having a hard time assimilating it as is evidenced by the comments 😢
So you never actually directly answered but I'd say based on the video that you don't think "Junk MIles" are a thing.
Ha. I had it down to talk about...but missed it. That's what happens when you do 1 take videos. I'll add it to a future one.
But no...junk miles aren't a thing.
Just to clarify..."junk miles" aren't a thing because all miles matter, no matter how slow?
Not everyone logs all of their mileage on Strava
Of course, but this is largely controlled for by using a very large dataset.
And they also had selection criteria within that dataset to control for that.
It would be interesting to compare volume of running as time spent running rather than what everyone (including you here) does as distance run. As a slower runner, 150km a week of running took me about 3-3.5 hours a day, whereas for an elite, that would take them maybe 1.5-2 hours a day, assuming we're both working in the same relative heartrate zone. If it's all about time in the zone, I'm working way harder than them. If it's about distance covered, we're doing the same. Sure I got excellent results from that training block, but it's apples to oranges comparison
Again, the research compared time in zones as well...And when you look at time spent EASY running, the sub 2:30 still spend 2.5x as much time running easy as the 3hr+.
Yes, using time instead of miles makes a small difference. But the gulf is so huge, that if you use minutes, it's still giant.
@@SteveMagnessthe way you're talking, all I need to do is run 80+km a week to get below 3 hour marathon. However I did 14 weeks of over 100km a week for my last marathon block and ended with a 5:40. I've gone up to 150km a week and as low as 50km a week and my best time is 4:49. I'm within the normal weight range and I'm 42. I've run 15 marathons over the last 12 years.
My point is the extreme assurance with which your speaking is great I guess, but doesn't work for me. I can't speak for anyone else. It just rubs wrong when you're so sure of your numbers, but they're just not always close to reality for some of us.
@@edwin5419what variation of runs was you doing?
@ mostly zone 2 with one or two faster ones a week. Mainly long intervals or threshold work. Plus I try to get 10-20 wind sprints in across the course of the week
Research is better than your of the athletes you coach 🤞🏽.
Ride a bike for volume and run for performance.
It's really a mystery to me if all these training theories have ever considered female athletes or they are totally gendered.
The study mentioned looked at female athletes as well. Same result.
From a historical standpoint, we can see greater trends because of the length of time of elite M vs. F competition.
Where's the study that compares athletes doing the two hard workouts and one long run that Shorter recommended but not doing all the easy runs, and those doing it all? In this review what we see is a study showing accumulated mileage for elites over periods of up to 7 years. We didn't see any comparison with the alternative of less volume/fuller recovery in between those two hard sessions and the long run. Of course, the more mileage you've accumulated, the more you are able to run, but maybe someone who leaves out the easy runs, reduces mileage, and does the hard runs a little harder, the long run a bit longer would also perform at the same level, or perhaps even better.
We have a century of training history to show that isn't the case. I also cover the couple studies that do similar manipulations to those suggested in my book Science of Running. You need a certain amount of volume to maximize performance, and you can't short cut your way there by running harder workouts. It's why even the more successful interval based coaches like Igloi, had a high volume of accumulated load with a large number of the intervals serving as easy training.
@@SteveMagness Does a century of training history constitute science? Before Galileo we had how many millennia of certainty that the earth was the center of the universe? I'm going to remain skeptical until you show me the studies that really prove the claim. In the spirit of science, I'd say that it's quite possible that there could be a whole lot of junk mileage being run just because that's the way we've been doing it for a century.
@@Avianthrowatch Steve’s history of training video. There you will find the answers to your questions. The race results and the athletes training plans are the documented science. If you think there was a minuscule chance that your theory that dropping the volume of slow miles might improve results- today’s elites would be doing it - and they aren’t.
Please. Never convert km to miles. This corresponds to turninf gold into straw
I wish you'd talk in kilometres! A lot of us have no idea what these numbers in miles even mean. Event distances are in kilometres: 5K, 10K etc.
I hear you. But I'm American. And most of my audience is. So just have a calculator ready.