June 7th, 2010
I’ve been thinking about optimum mileage lately. If you read the marathon training forum on Runners World, you’d definitely come away thinking more is best. And for the most part, I tend to agree, but what exactly is “more”? Among my internet running friends, there are marathoners who post super fast times on 50mpw and would consider 70mpw to be beyond their scope, then there are others who do 100+mpw and don’t bat an eye.
Yesterday, I asked Jaymee Marty how much she runs. She’s a masters runner going for the Olympic Trials…uber-zoomy. I wasn’t really interested in mileage as much as hours per week spent running, since that’s a universal measurement I can compare. She said her high weeks are between 8-9 hours and her easier weeks are 5-7. In comparison, my high weeks are 9.5 hours, low are 7 – and I’m not doing marathons.
If I had a 5 hour week, it’d be around 35mpw, so I just went back to see the last times I ran under 40mpw:
April 14, 2010 – 31 (taper for Boston)
Nov. 31, 2009 – 31 (recovery after Philly)
June 39, 2009 – 39 (2 days off for IT band)
April 27, 2009 – 39 (taper for Lehigh Valley Half)
Dec 22, 2008 – 38
Dec 15,2008 – 37
Nov 24, 2008 – 38
Wha? I hadn’t realized…twice under 35mpw in the last 1.5 years. Wow, might be time to take some cutback weeks.
The main question is: how much should I be running for the best possible shorter races? (Halfs being the main focus) I was thinking I’d only benefit by running marathon mileage when I didn’t “have to”, that every extra mile is money in the running bank but maybe I’m actually doing myself a disservice.
Would I be better off at 50-55mpw instead of high 60s? Maybe I’d be fresher and so could do my harder workouts harder? It’s conceivable that my current mileage, while maintaining all that aerobic fun stuff I’ve acquired, might also be compromising me in other ways.
This is a real quandary because 65mpw works for me as far as activity level and enjoyment, but I also admit to running it because I think I should, because in my ex-marathon brain, I think more is better and will make me faster. Misguided or sensible? I’m interested in your opinions on the matter if you have any.
As it happens, I will be running a bit less the next two weeks because I have a couple 5Ks and also, I’m taking today and tomorrow off due to….
Yesterday’s Run (and walk)
I’ve had a low-level annoyance for a few weeks, either heel bursitis (like I had last year but the other foot) or peroneal tendonitis – it’s between the ankle knob and the heel. They share symptoms but I’m starting to think it’s peroneal over bursitis.
It usually only shows itself upon waking when I have a stiff ankle, though when I first got it, sitting for awhile would also make my ankle stiff, but that stopped a while back and now it’s only been the first morning steps and sometimes while going down stairs. Running hasn’t presented a problem, though occasionally I’ll notice my ankle warming up the first tenth of a mile but then nothing.
Yesterday, I went out for a 13-miler that ended up being a 7.25 run capped with 3 miles walking home. For the first time, my ankle started hurting on the run and enough that I felt it necessary to shut it down. Once home, I started an ibuprofen regimen and pledged to roll the crap out of my calves and butt (which has also been tight for awhile and probably related).
Woke up today and no stiff ankle! Must be yesterday’s ibuprofen working. But I’m sticking to my guns of taking today and tomorrow off even though the heatwave we’ve had for 7 days (highs 93-95) just broke. I’d like nothing better than to run right now, it’s 64 beautiful degrees out there. Must. Not. Run.
Posted in 
Tags: 
optimal mileage is definitely something i’ve been pondering lately. i think there’s different optimums for different races too but that’s something i’m trying to work out. albeit difficultly as i rarely race. i think it’s not just overall mileage but also the length of individual runs. sure for marathon training getting in long runs are clutch butttt i think that’s it’s easier on the body and that my body responds better to 3 X 5 miles in a day than 1 X 15 miles. i’m less tired and i can run the entire 15 faster split up. and holy rambling batman!
glad the ankle isn’t hurting today but it sucks majorly that you had to shut down yesterday’s run
The caveat with splitting it up is that you lose the endurance benefits a single 15 would give you, but if your mileage is high 70s and above, doubles are the way to go. Or in your case triples (never heard of that before!)
Ron Clarke used to do triples, but he never counted the lunch-time run as part of his mileage. He said that was what he had to do to match the smaller East African runners of the time.
I think small doubles (and triples) can be useful. For example 2 x 5 miles instead of 1 x 10. You’re cutting down the number of hours recovery between runs, so the second run of the day (and the am run the next day) are run with less recovery.
I am so with you on the MUST.NOT.RUN. I told myself today was an off day, I’ve tired. But man it’s so nice out!
I too have played with the milage question. As you know I ran Boston on low milage because of injury and I was very happy with the results. I’m really thinking for me, maxing at 60 for marathon training might be the sweet spot. Perhaps experiment a little in the 50s for a few weeks and see how it goes.
I think mileage is a very personal thing. I can remember trying to hit 40 miles a week and feeling like I could never do more. I worked up to 70+ miles a week and peek weeks in the 80s. Now I can do those miles and still get in 2 quality workouts and every other week putting quality in my long run. We also taking a beating this time of year as the temps warm up. This takes even more out of us. Flo, find what works for you. This means you need to try different things.
I think mid-50s (average) is the best for half. I am also a big believer in a 2-week cycle. Which mean an up mileage week followed by an up speed week. So week one might be high 50s with a long run-16 miles and a long tempo and week 2 is low 50s- with faster/shorter tempo (or race), track intervals and fast finish long run.
This has worked well for me in the past.
Hmmm, I like this recipe, sounds smart. What do you do as far as recovery weeks, do you take them regularly or on an as-needed basis?
Generally I’ve had step-down week on the 5th week, So two 2-weeks cycles then an week at 65%-75% mileage of max week. Sometimes these step-down weeks wind up as mini-tapers for goal type races, sometimes they coincide with travel or family stuff.
I almost always write them into the plan and force myself to follow.
Thanks, Matt, really good food for thought there. I’ll try and incorporate this when I put my schedule together.
I think 35mpw IS high mileage for me.
Love the topic! Right now, I’m on a 9-week schedule to train for a 15k, and I will peak at 46 miles. After that I will train on a 12-week schedule for a half where I want to PR to qualify for NYC via time. Thinking about mileage for that and if I can peak in the mid 50′s. I’ve read a lot lately about ‘junk’ miles and how to avoid them. More mileage alone doesn’t make you faster, obviously, but how to find the right balance between ‘more’ and quality/hard workouts where the majority of your miles are at race pace, is where I am struggling. High mileage, and for me that might mean ‘only’ 50, does have the potential to increase the risk of getting injured and with age, like it or not, that risk does increase as well with higher mileage. Right now I’m looking for a good training program that will get me the right balance.
Thanks folks, your replies and experiences are great reading! Keep ‘em coming.
Love this topic, as I am sure you know why. I do think there is definitely a point of diminishing returns. I do think everyone has a sweet spot. I also think while running more will generally make you a better runner, but I do think people will sometimes simply point to not running enough as their weakness. But the fine line of A) staying healthy, B) being able to nail your hard workouts C)actually still enjoying running while cranking out the miles can be a tightrope. In reality, there’s only one way to find out – give it a shot. It would make sense that you wouldn’t need to run as much if you are focusing on shorter stuff, but I am no expert.
When I am not in a 3-4 week build up (40-50mpw) before marathon training starts, I’ll run anywhere between 20-40 mpw. I keep enough fitness and I think I am pretty fresh when it’s go time. I do realize I am at the bottom end of the mileage rung when it comes to people around my marathon PR. Could I be even faster if I hit it a little harder in between cycles? Perhaps, but I have learned I need that downtime both physically and mentally.
Sorry for the novel.
My feelings about mileage are not easily summarized in a comment box, but I think of what Hudson says in his book about most people coming to a particular distance from a position of strength and one of weakness. If you’re a long distance runner coming down to 5K, the aerobic endurance or whatever you want to call it is probably your strong side. The tricky question then becomes whether you will improve more by playing to your strengths (ability and motivation to run high mileage being one of them), or by addressing some of your weaknesses directly.
I’ve noticed talking to the gals in my running club that many of us have an individual mileage threshold below which we really don’t feel fit, but beyond that there’s not so much of a correlation with times.
Zab, no apologies, this is exactly what I’m interested in and from you especially because I know you’re not always a mega-mileage guy, even had some fits and starts prior to Boston, yet your times are stellar. I also agree 100%, that we each have our own sweet spot, though the hard thing is identifying it, since one cycle you may have X mileage but you also did more intervals or hills or lost a couple lbs, etc.
Kristin, thanks for your mention of how the other gals feel in your club, that’s great stuff! Good point about Hudson’s theory of strength/weaknesses. I guess I’ve played the mileage card for a while now so it’s time to attack the other.
More mileage is better. More quality is better too. Sometimes it makes sense to do more mileage. Sometimes it makes more sense to do more quality. It can be helpful to think in 4-6 week macrocycles in order to get the most out of your training. This is just periodization, of course, but thinking about the order of events and where your needs are at a particular time is the hard part.
A lot of people get into running in the “wrong” direction: running a marathon early in their running life and then trying to get faster. It really ought to be the other way around. Balance is hard to retrofit, since there are a series of neuromuscular adaptations that probably haven’t been built to support hard running. You see a lot of people who only know the marathon have difficulty hitting tempos and (particularly) speed sessions. They jog 5Ks because they don’t know the intensity.
This is a big issue with me — enough for my own blog (which won’t be coming anytime soon). “Run More” is a pretty stupid maxim — even though it’s a decent fallback. I mean, you will probably improve, but the law of diminishing returns catches up to you at a certain point in your running. You know how much more running I’d have to do to make improvements on volume alone? I’d estimate 50% more: 40-50 mpw. I don’t think that sounds like a lot of fun.
Meanwhile, if I had an alter-G like Jaymee Marty I’d run 7-8 hours a week on it alone. I’d watch more t.v., too, I imagine. I guess that would be one way to get at that missing 50%.
Adam, read her Alter-G post, she was joking about that, she got an iPad. :-)
This “thinking about the order of events and where your needs are at a particular time is the hard part” is the hands-down hardest part to me. Like I mentioned in my comment to Zab, I find it extremely difficult to identify what’s lacking and what’s needed, which is why I end up doing some of everything instead of focusing more on one area. I guess this is the problem with self-coaching, it’s hard to step outside of yourself (for me, anyway).
That said, since I run pretty much already, I guess it only leaves a couple things, speed and speed/endurance…oh, and leg speed. Guess I need to focus on speed.
So you think I should keep it in the 60s or take it down a notch to the 50s? Care to opine?
Wish you’d keep a blog, I’d read it regularly.
I don’t know — probably. In my own case I’ve stopped thinking about mileage as the 1st thing, rather it is what it is as a result of the workouts I want to hit. I mean, I have a sense about a couple of things, such as frequency of running, average LR duration/distance, and such, but the rest is about designing the best workouts to get me from a perceived A to Z. It turns out that I’m running about 10% less now than I probably will in marathon training, which seems about right.
If you could put the blinders on and just design a 4-week sequence you’d probably get a lot out of it.
Interesting, I considered continuing with my standard weekly mix of MLR/interval/tempo/LR for September’s Half but realized it lacked any kind of periodization which concerned me. OTOH, I wasn’t feeling smart enough to figure the periods out on my own. Then I remembered the great season I had working with Hudson’s Level 3 Half plan (though he’s kind of anti-periodization) and so decided I’d just do that again.
But I have guilt for not personalizing Hudson more in the past so I’ll try to come up with something more specific featuring his workouts but focused on 3 macrocycles instead of the one. Not so sure I feel equipped to make the best choices, but I’ll try.
Well I’m no help with this discussion, but I like it to read about it.
Of course I’m a told newbie so you can’t really shove enough miles at me.
Hudson’s not really anti-periodization, he’s pro balance. His “parallel periodization” concept is no more than a slight tweak (if anything) to the traditional model. Really, he’s just concerned about leaving some aspect of fitness behind for too long while you focus on something else.
4 weeks of speed + 4 weeks of strength + 4 weeks of specific endurance/taper for the half sounds good to me.
Check this out:
http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=9254&PageNum=&CategoryID=
Thank you Adam, sounds solid to me. You’re the best!
I’ve read that article before – will go over it again and hopefully this time will retain the info within.
Hhhmmmmm, yeah, I would LOVE to say more is better, considering the mileage I’ve been putting in. I think it is, really. I mean, look at all the elite marathoners. Some even do easy runs in the 8s, so time on feet might not be too different from ours.
I will really be able to say for sure how I feel about high mileage after my next one/two marathons. Last two marathons were on peak of 100mpw, this time more like 85 mpw. We’ll see!
As for the paroneal tendon- ice, stretch, repeat. Once it feels better, you might want to add some ankle strengthening activities to your routine. Just food for thought. CANT WAIT UNTIL PHILLY!
I wonder about that. McMillan’s average easy pace for a 2:19 marathoner (Deena’s PR) is 6:00/mi. whereas mine’s about 8:30…that’s 41% slower. Seems like transposing time rather than miles makes more sense. For an older, late starting non-marathoner like me, that is.
And yes, can’t wait to see your Alabaman Ass in Philly! Woohoo!
Our top Masters runner generally does 70 a week, with a 22. He doesn’t run marathons but does quite well at shorter stuff. I think the more the merrier provided that you’re not constantly worn down.
“Would I be better off at 50-55mpw instead of high 60s? Maybe I’d be fresher and so could do my harder workouts harder? It’s conceivable that my current mileage, while maintaining all that aerobic fun stuff I’ve acquired, might also be compromising me in other ways.”
Your hard workouts should be no harder than they should be. What’s important is how easily you recover from them, or from your longer runs. You do more faster stuff in training for shorter races and if you aren’t recovering then I’d look to the amount of mileage. But if you’re not having trouble, I see no reason to cut down the mileage except insofar as your long run isn’t quite as long and you substitute a shorter speed thing for, say, a long MP run.
“Your hard workouts should be no harder than they should be” If I’m running less, I might be faster which would make the workouts faster, too. I’ve always felt marathons slowed me down and I’m basically still training for one, mileage-wise at least. In fact, I ran more last month than I did building for Boston.
The kooky thing is, I have no idea what “recovered” means – I’ve absolutely no clue if I spend my week in a half-recovered state, a fully recovered state or what. I know it sounds weird but I can’t discern the difference. Unless I’m actually hurting, I have no sense of it.
It’s really strange because I’m so sensitive in so many other areas but for rest and repair…haven’t a clue.
As to recovery, a couple of years back I could do a long run or a race on Sunday and have no problem hitting my paces for Tuesday night’s speedwork. Now it’s tougher so I’ll need an extra day, and I’ll take one day off a week.
I assume that a consistently-elevated HR for X pace over what it usually is would be a sign that one is not recovered.
Also, a workout may be faster depending on what kind of shape you’re in, but you still don’t want to make it harder than it should be. Of course, given the rarity of a marathon, I’d end up using shorter races as the proxy for my condition and thus the basis for my workout paces, even when I was training for a marathon.
I agree with you 100% that workouts shouldn’t be run harder than they need to be. I’m talking about optimizing working ability as a whole, with faster workouts emerging out of that naturally, not artificially manufactured.
HR can be helpful, though mine was elevated from Sept. to Feb. and now we have heat and humidity in the mix.
I dunno, my instinct is telling me to pull it back to 50s for a few weeks. Taking a weekly rest day would be an easy way to dip off the 60s while also giving me room for building and peaking as the weeks progress.
Is training for a 1/2M so different from a full M? (They both require fairly high mpw and emphasis on long tempos)
I say drop the mpw to 50 and concentrate exclusively on 5K (or shorter) for a cycle – 2 speed workouts a week.
- rovatti
It’s shorter and faster stuff than Marathon training. It shouldn’t require the same mileage as marathons, half the distance is dramatically less. I’d venture to say marathons require high mileage and Halfs, fairly high.
Your 5K idea is enticing but I have a goal Half in September that I’m happily committed to. I actually can’t see myself ever training for 5Ks for a whole cycle, I’d be too paranoid about losing my endurance, but I’ll spend a few weeks after the Half doing that.
You’ve inspired a great discussion here, Flo. I’m finding everyone’s perspectives very interesting. I also love the fact that I am still fooling people with that Alter-G Photoshop job:)
I wanted to clear up that, when you asked me that question, I was referring to my mileage/hours right now: post-injury and focusing on short distance speed. When I ramp back up for my fall marathon, I will be averaging 11-13 hours per week of running with about 2-3 hours of strength and cross training. So, that might be the best way to look at the numbers: I decrease my mileage by about 25-40% when focusing on shorter distance. My plan always includes periodization, and I get a recovery week (lower mileage) about every 4th week. I had one last week and only ran 40 miles!
OK, that definitely puts a different perspective on it, lol! I was thinking, man, how am I running more that you? I know you’re fast, but still.
Thanks for the correction, much appreciated. Also, really good to see how you adjust for the shorter distances. Excellent info!
Well, pooh. My reader is on the blink, and didn’t tell me you’d posted a new one, Flo. What a post, too. Nice discussion here, and a good call on using time to compare our weekly “mileage” to that of elites. I agree with Amuse that weekly mileage is more of a result than a target. We do the workouts and it’s whatever they add up to.
Oh, Jaymee, does having an iPad strapped to your arm affect your form? Perhaps you need one each side? (I know, Photoshop)
Another interesting thing about time vs distance is in comparing speed sessions, which I sometimes forget. For example, if we want to do a super fast person’s workout of 5 x 1mi, a slower person’s equivalent might be 5 x 1200s instead. Our body doesn’t know how many meters we travel, just how long we’re taxing it.
I know you already know this, but for the benefit of other readers who may not.
Jim E., It does affect my form a little, but my right bicep is super cut as a result:)
Very interesting discussion Flo. My thoughts are that if your main event is the half, then the more the merrier. The best half runners are generally the best marathoners (except for Tadese!). The only difference I’d say, is that you could drop the long run down to 15 miles max.
I like the comment from A Muse about not neglecting parts of what’s needed for good running in any particular phase of training. Especially, don’t neglect your speed as you get older.
If 10k were your maximum distance, I’d say you can get away with less, but that less would need more intensity. For example, one of my training partners is one of the best 50+ runners in the country and runs year-round about 50-60 ks (not miles) per week (supplemented by some biking). However she does 2-3 very hard sessions per week (mainly interval), with usually high volume in those. The rest of her ‘easy’ running is not that slow!
Hope running treats you well today