posted May-25-2006 10:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:

One of the primary debates, if not the primary debate, within the running community is the influence weekly mileage has on performance.

---

This is only a debate among less experienced and/or less successful runners.

Among experienced competitive runners there is no debate at all. You need to have a substantial volume of mileage to reach your potential. Of course there are other factors that are important as well, but it all starts with running sufficient mileage to build a strong aerobic base. Period.

IP: Logged

posted May-25-2006 11:09 PM            

Your lack of anything approaching scientific skill or temperment infects your work. Such is the case with your response to Andy.

Here is what you say about the Furman studies on your site: "The FIRST results directly contradict the belief held by many that high mileage, base building type programs are superior."

No, they don't. The researchers don't claim they do. Andy has already explained why: there's no control. Without a control, no basis is provided by these data that the FIRST methods are superior to anything for any particular purpose.

The only way you can -- if you're behaving as a scientist -- assert that a data set "directly" proves that Method A produces results that are superior (or at least not inferior) to Method B would be set up a valid control using Method B. The Furman studies do not do this. Which means that the Furman study does not "directly contradict" anything about the superiority or inferiority of any other training program. (Nor does it prove or disprove much of anything about optimal training frequency/mileage and genetics, which you say it does "at a minimum." What, exactly, does it prove? Do the researchers say that they hit on the optimal frequency and mileage for anybody? Do you? Why would you say that?)

You also show your lack of training -- and I'm being charitable here; it's really more a lack of common sense -- when you try to distinguish the Furman data from "real life examples." You say to Andy that "'Real life experience' is not credible, valid data" -- this means, I suppose, that any records kept by runners and coaches, like Andy himself, is neither credible nor valid. But, according to you, the Furman data are "credible and valid" scientific data.

Why are the Furman data credible, valid, and scientific, while real-world data are not? Because the Furman data were collected by Ph.Ds who were conducting a "study" and real-world data are not because there's no "study"? This would seem to be the only distinction. The Furman data that you harp on as "valid and credible" consist of reports (from the subjects) about their training and race results. Real-word data typically consist of athlete's and coach's reports about training. And race results.

Assuming folks are telling the truth about training, neither set of data is inherently more valid or more credible for scientific purposes. They both involve largely quantifiable stuff like duration, pace, frequency, and so on. Valuable things can be learned from data like these.

But neither data set was collected in the context of a controlled experiment. That makes it quite shaky for use as a "direct contradiction" of something not controlled for; it's not terribly valuable as (your words again) a "point of comparison" when the researchers didn't set up a control -- an internal point of comparison -- against which to make a comparison. The researchers could have set the program up as a controlled study of one method versus another. They did not. That's why they don't draw even tentative conclusions about its superiority to anything. That's a task for hacks. Glad to see you fill that void.

Now: data collected outside of a controlled experiment are not inherently bad, or unusable for any purpose (you get this wrong too). This has been especially true in physiology -- and this would be readily apparent to you if you had any actual experience in physiology. But you expose yourself as a bad parody of a scientist when you attempt to elevate the Furman results into not one, but two dimensions where it does not belong: first, its self-contained results do not establish -- because they do not measure -- the superiority of anything; second, the data are not inherently valid and scientific in ways that similar stuff collected in the real world is not.

You'd know this if you bothered even trying to think like a scientist, as opposed to just trying to sound like one.

What the Furman results prove is that, for a signficant number of the people who participated, the program as set up for and sold to them contributed to their improvement in a number of quanifiable benchmarks from where they started. That's it. It's not insignificant. But does it establish that a different program, with extraneous variables controlled for, would have led to more or less improvement for those subjects? No. Does it establish that a different program would have led to more or less improvement for a control group? No.

It is, in short, another "real world" data set about a few people who used a method that seemed to help a good number of them get better once they bought into it. A local running club in my area does something similar -- it sets up a training program, touts it to runners targeting a particular race, collects their training data, gets their times, and boasts about its wonderful record in helping people set PRs. The folks who tab this stuff don't publish in magazines or wear white coats, but the methodology and data collected mirrors that which you babble on about, Richard. But these guys don't have the huevos to claim that their data pool somehow proves that their Pfitzinger-y program is superior to other methods, or that their data is valid and useful in ways that "real world" data is not.

[This message has been edited by Hairy Trotter (edited May-25-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted May-25-2006 11:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Andy,

I appreciate your comments and would like to analyze your points in some detail.

Your comments about the 3 days per week program are interesting. It's not clear to me if you simply haven't looked closely at the details of the studies and what we can legitimately learn from them or if you've already made up your mind about high mileage training and just want to dismiss the studies.

First, the researchers have conducted this program 3 times now, meaning they've researched this same training program with 75 subjects, not the 25 you indicate. 75 subjects is large enough to draw meaningful data from.

Second, your comment about not directly comparing to another program is valid - this study did not include another training group.

So, what are we to make of this data? Well, we could do as you suggest and completely dismiss the data due to no direct comparison to another program. Let's say we do that - only accept credible training data that arises from a direct comparison to another training program. Uh oh, now we've got a problem because you reference "a large-body of real life experience" in a follow on paragraph. Clearly, we have to apply the very same standard to all data - we can't pick and choose which data is subjected to one standard while other data is subjected to a completely different set of standards. Double standards are clearly not the way to go. "Real life experience" is not credible, valid data and isn't even close to meeting your standard for direct comparison to another training method. This obviously means none of the "real life experience" the high mileage crowd uses can be used because it doesn't meet your standard for properly evaluating data.

On the other hand, what your comments leave out is the obvious comparison to the previous training of the subjects who were experienced marathoners. 25 of 30 experienced marathoners either set PRs or beat their most recent marathon performance. While this isn't a direct comparison, it still provides a point of comparison - a point of comparison that falls directly into line with your "real life experience" standard for evaluating data. If we accept that "real life experience" can provide some meaningful information and compare the "real life experience" of the experienced marathoners to their results from this program, then the info we draw from this program is not false or invalid.

See the challenge? If we dismiss credible data from research whose results we don't like then how can we maintain any personal credibility when we immediately turn around and claim data that meets NO standards of evaluation is somehow valid?

Moving on to the next point. In your summary paragraph you write that humans aren't inbred, genetically-identical lab mice. This is a point I completely agree with you on and I vigoriously promote it everywhere I go. Let's talk about the implications of this. If we aren't all identical and are, in fact, quite dissimilar genetically, what are the odds that 1 particular training program is going to be correct for most or all of us? If we are quite diverse genetically, wouldn't that mean that there would likely be an equally diverse range of optimal training? It is incongruent to claim we are genetically different and then to claim one particular training method is best for most or all. The logic doesn't work.

In summary, any and all data should be evaluated with an open mind and with the same set of standards. Additionally, the logic of a particular belief should be examined and carried to its logical conclusion - contradictions and obviously flawed logic should not be allowed to exist simply to protect a particular belief or set of beliefs.

I suggest that when valid data contradicts our cherished beliefs we are faced with 2 options. First is to attack the data and the messenger in order to preserve our beliefs. Second is to alter our beliefs to align with the new information. The first method leads to incongruence, double standards, and unfair evaluations. The 2nd leads us to the truth. I'm all for being fair when evaluating data, even when a set of data contradicts my beliefs and believe I am generally pretty good about fairly evaluating data. What about you?

---

Just curious how your Power running is working for you? Have you tried running a marathon on just 25 miles per week? If so, did you get faster?
Have you tried training for a marathon on 100 miles per week? If so, did you get faster? You cite study after study, but has been your personal experience with all this?

How much have you personally experimented and documented your findings based on your own experience? (ala Lydiard)

My experience is that I got faster on high mileage 65-70 miles per week at the marathon (sub 3:40) and 5k's, 10k's and 15k's. Low mileage (30-40 mpw) with speed work left me with horrible marathon times (4:00 +). The only thing that suffered with high mileage was my relationship with my partner.

I've seen countless people in the many running clubs I've belonged to over the years improve greatly in speed and endurance when they upped they're mileage to 70+ without speedwork. Are you telling me that all these experiences aren't valid?

Why is personal, anecdotal data not valid?
Why is empirical data not valid?
Why is my own personal experience not valid?

Why is only YOUR belief in your creation, Powerrunning, and all the studies that fit into your belief the only thing that is valid?

Why would Bill Rodgers bother running 200+ miles per week if it wasn't working? You're telling Bill Rodgers that he could have achieved the same measure of success on 100 mile per week, that he just needed to increase his intensity?

Lastly, what are your credentials that make you such an expert?
Are you a coach with vast amounts of experience with runners of all types? A great runner perhaps? Can you help me be a better runner? Are you confident that your beliefs are on the money?

By taking such a persuasive stance on your views about running, and hoping for followers (you are always inviting people go to your website), are you willing to take some responsibility if some newbie reads your scientific sermons and ends up going out and increasing their intensity, and injuring themselves? When perhaps they needed to run slowly and build their miles up for a few years first. You'd be partially responsible, since you are acting like a teacher, and are really looking to persuade people.

I really hope your writings are based on years of experience and not an intellectual exercise.

sf

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 03:41 AM            

But, come to think of it, wouldn't the two methods discussed here be better to accomplish different goals?

For instance, the 5k is 3.1 miles, the marathon is 26.2

So, wouldn't high mileage be more right for the marathon, because surely high mileage can only help with a 3 mile race to a cirtain point? Where maybe low mileage, high intensity can acheive the same/better results?

I hope I make sense!

Anyway...
So if I'm running:

MON - REST
TUE - 3.6 miles - slow
WED - 7.5 - tempo - last mile at race pace
TUE - 3.6 - slow
FRI - REST

SAT - 3.6 - tempo
SUN - 10 - slow

Is that ok? It appears to me, that I have answered a question to which there is no answer!

I am trying to be economical with my miles, but I don't want to diminish my areobic base (now I've fallen in line with Tchucks thinking).

Maybe when my bones stop hurting and I get stronger I will carry out my own study into high mileage!

Any input/advice is good.

Thanks for all replies.

Dan

------------------
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize?
Run in such a way as to get the prize.
- 1 Corinthians 9:24-27

My User Profile
My Climbing Photos

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 06:05 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMountaineer:
But, come to think of it, wouldn't the two methods discussed here be better to accomplish different goals?

For instance, the 5k is 3.1 miles, the marathon is 26.2

So, wouldn't high mileage be more right for the marathon, because surely high mileage can only help with a 3 mile race to a cirtain point? Where maybe low mileage, high intensity can acheive the same/better results?

---

You're right to certain extent, but the training for both events is very similar. The world's best 5k guys run around 90-110mpw and the top marathoners anywhere from 100-140mpw. Even the best milers approach 100mpw during the base building phase. You need to have your aerobic endurance as high as possible for both events ( even in the 5k over 90% of your energy is supplied aerobically ), the difference is that your specific workouts ( intervals/hills/fartleks ) will be geared more towards your goal event. ie closer to your actual race pace.

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 07:13 AM               

Thank you for providing a perfect example of why you have no credibility when talking about scientific validity. These athletes could have done this on ANY training they were put on....without a control group, we have absolutely no way of knowing whether the 3-day training was responsible, or simply training period! I've already explained this, but obviously you are not scientifically savvy enough to understand this simple, clear flaw in experimental design. My personal examples, on the other hand, are better controlled. While an individual can't control themselves perfectly (they can't follow 2 training regimes simultaneously), switching from one regime to the other still provides much better control that your "study".

You say I have a preconceived notion, but the fact is I arrived at this belief through years of gathering observational evidence. Your site and views are far from impartial and unbiased, so don't pretend you're being scientific...you choose only studies that support your view and, as I already pointed out in another thread, you misquote the authors to make sweeping conclusions that even they specifically noted their data was not good enough to make.

If you really want to sound like a scientist, get some basic training as one. I have 10 years training in cellular/molecular biology and biochemistry, so you're going to need to produce a much more stringent analysis if you want to get anywhere.

Dan's right...this is only a debate among inexperienced runners or those with their heads in the sand.

Mountaineer - There is actually a debate at exactly what point the divide exists between the need for speed and high-mileage benefits. At the elite level, 400m runners clearly don't use or need high mileage. However, many 800m runners do fairly high mileage (ie Snell). A few don't. Most 1500m runners do high mileage base periods....the further you go above that, the more time they spend doing high mileage. So at the elite level, the divide is somewhere around 800m.

At the "mortal" level, it can vary a lot more. Mileage is clearly helpful at least through 5K at most performance levels. I spent 3 years trying to break my 15:37 5K PR, only to finally shatter it with a 15:18 in the second half of a 10K after averaging 90+ for 3 months. Previous attempts on lower mileage had been unsuccessful. If you search around, a lot of people set 5K PRs off of marathon training. Below that, things become more variable however. I know a lot of guys who run 1500m PRs off pretty low mileage (under 30 sometimes). At the 800m level, I know a guy who can run 1:52 off low mileage but only mid-16 in the 5K...clearly low mileage is at least acceptable for his 800m though we cannot say more wouldn't help take another second or two off.

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 07:20 AM            

The differences between Lydiard, Pfitzinger, Daniels, etc is really not all that great. Not as great as you suggest. My analagy would be that they are all speaking the same language but perhaps with a slightly different accent.

I think Noakes puts it best when he calls all of the various running theories "models" and says none of them are "wrong" but that some of them, including his in particular explain things a little bit better. But here's the real test....

The goal of competitive running is to get faster. How many people have gotten faster by conventional methods and how many have gotten faster by just focussing on intensity? That's the only "study" that really matters.

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 07:30 AM            

I hope you are not flummoxed by me hi-jacking your thread and leading us off on a rather wide tangent.

I'd like to return to a more directly on point question--My running (and I assume yours) is purely for my recreation and enjoyment and benefit. Part of the challenge is to see how fast I can run. But nobody cares about my PRs excpet myself and (marginally) a few running friends of mine (both real and on-line friends). I am personally convinced that higher mileage is going to allow me to run faster. Will it help you? I think so, but the proof is in the pudding. Try it and see.

The other reason I run (relatively) high mileage (I'm a beginner, so I'm still working my way up, averaging about 60 mpw this year, not truly high mileage, but I aim to increase it) is because I LIKE RUNNING. Frankly, the Run a PR on 3 days a Week has very limited appeal to me. I understand that all of us recreational runners are trying to find a balance of home, job, family, running, etc. in a way that works for us, so if somebody finds that they are happy on 3 days a week running and it allows time for other interests or something like that, I'm all in favor of them following that approach. You and I aren't going to the Olympics so it is important to fram your running within that larger context.

Southern Man

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 07:31 AM               

The other thing I should have included in my earlier post to you is that the high mileage crowd often quickly changes the topic from physiology/training to "Richard". Instead of continuing to debate and defend their particular method/beliefs the tactic instead becomes "question the credibility of the other person" - a tactic that can clearly be seen being used here.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited May-26-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 07:51 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Mountaineer,

The other thing I should have included in my earlier post to you is that the high mileage crowd often quickly changes the topic from physiology/training to "Richard". Instead of continuing to debate and defend their particular method/beliefs the tactic instead becomes "question the credibility of the other person" - a tactic that can clearly be seen being used here.

---

You can't divorce yourself from the beliefs you are preaching. There's a reason people keep bringing it back to you. One, is that you are the one preaching a point of view-- for what reason, only you know. The other is that you create condescending groupings in your mind and label people ("the high mileage crowd"), like you are the pinnacle of knowledge and anyone who challenges you personally is somehow an idiot who can't face the truth, thus has to attack you instead.

When someone comes across as an expert, I believe he should be challenged on his credentials and real expertise with actual running, not debate.

So, I'll ask these questions again. One might surmise that if you shy away from answering them, that you don't have any real experience that supports you as an expert, and you are afraid to tell the truth.

On what experience, besides piecing studies together that fit your hypothesis, and basically just practicing a form of debate, do you base your expertise on? (e.g. how many years coaching runners or years of improvement under your program do you have?)

How are these beliefs actually working for you?

Have you bettered your marathon times with your Powerrunning?

Have you coached people to higher levels with your method?

Where is your own data based on your own scientific and empirical study that supports your hypothesis? (citing studies is not real scientific work, it just makes you good at writing a term paper, and that's it)

sf

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 07:53 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
Richard99,

The goal of competitive running is to get faster. How many people have gotten faster by conventional methods and how many have gotten faster by just focussing on intensity? That's the only "study" that really matters.

---

Good quote Tigger. I need to chime in and again use my experience/study comparing how I used to train on 25 mph vs. what I do now at 25 mph. I am as competitive as heck and need to limit my miles per week for many reasons. Higher intensity doesn't always work (I thought this was the way to train), in fact I think most times it doesn't work. Last year I did very high intensity with race pace intervals, hard tempos etc. Only when I cut back on that and focused on strong aerobic runs, slower tempos and less very hard work, did I get faster. Not once in my training did I run 5 or 10K paced intervals for longer than 30 seconds yet had no issues maintaining my 5K pace in the race. I still run at all paces in training but generally 70% of my running is controlled, 20-25% moderately hard and around 5-10% very hard. I think this ratio works at all levels of running athletes. But those running only 25 miles per week, I think it is even more important to slow down. Arguably, we need more base work to begin with, faster training will just offset this.

Mountaineer,

I think your bones hurt because you train to hard.

For your miles per week (and mine), I think you need to limit your harder efforts to twice per week vs. three times per week. If your mileage and base were greater, you could do 3 harder efforts but not at 25 miles per week.

Your long run is a hard effort. Finish last two miles at a marathon tempo pace. This will teach you and train you to run harder on tired legs.

The other harder work out, do your 7+ miles with either a 5 mile tempo run (around 50-60 sec. below 5K pace) or throw in 16 - 20 minutes of critical velocity intervals (about 20 sec. below 5K pace). You can do these as 6 X 800M or 3 X 1 mile or 4-5 by 1K with 2 min. recoveries. Your other training runs will be around 1:45 - 2:00 slower than 5K pace and if feeling great, you can pick it up the last mile if you wish focusing on great running form. Training this way will make you faster in your races because it doesn't tear you down and allows you to recover and allows you to be fresher in races so you perform your best.

------------------
My Profile

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 08:13 AM               

I understand your efforts to divert the conversation away from physiology/training and to make it about me. If there were an abundance of data supporting the belief in high mileage, those is that group would endlessly point to it (and rightfully so). In the absence of that data, the fall back position is to question the credibility and credentials of the opponents, me in this case. You are not even close to being the first person who has tried this tactic and you aren't even going to be the last.

This discussion isn't about me, despite your efforts to make it so. It's about physiology/training. If you have a particular belief about physiology/training, then express it and do your best to support and defend it. I will do the same.

You can continue to try and make it about me, questioning my motives and intentions, but at the end of the day the fact is that your beliefs will have to stand on their own.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 08:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
sparrow,

I understand your efforts to divert the conversation away from physiology/training and to make it about me. If there were an abundance of data supporting the belief in high mileage, those is that group would endlessly point to it (and rightfully so). In the absence of that data, the fall back position is to question the credibility and credentials of the opponents, me in this case. You are not even close to being the first person who has tried this tactic and you aren't even going to be the last.

This discussion isn't about me, despite your efforts to make it so. It's about physiology/training. If you have a particular belief about physiology/training, then express it and do your best to support and defend it. I will do the same.

You can continue to try and make it about me, questioning my motives and intentions, but at the end of the day the fact is that your beliefs will have to stand on their own.

---

Interesting that you see it as a tactic. My questions are real. You are selling your website here, and I wish to know what your actual experience is, what your own scientific experimentation and empirical data says, and whether or not it really works for you and runners that you coach. If you can't answer these, you shouldn't be selling your Powerrunning website in these forums (you keep pointing people to your website), and you shouldn't be coming across as an expert. I'll challenge any expert personally. If they can't back it up with actual credentials, real experience, and experimentation, then they are just intellectuals who aren't really that honest--they are just looking to get something from people ("come to my website").

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 08:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
sparrow,

If there were an abundance of data supporting the belief in high mileage, those is that group would endlessly point to it (and rightfully so).

---

But there is Richard. You just don't want to acknowledge it. I told you to check out some of the local (maffetone) testimonials to base building. Do you think that kind of data is irrelevant?

Do you think all of the good coaches are wrong in their approach? Let's just look at Lydiard. He used himself (a good runner but hardly an elite.) as an experiment of one to determine what worked and what didn't. He then applied the outcomes to some New Zealanders and he managed to coach multiple olympic gold medal winning performances out of relatively short distance runners (800 to 1500 meters) who did high mileage long distance training. Lydiard then went to Finland where he duplicated his results with Finnish runners. How is it possible you can ignore success like this and continue to suggest high intensity training is better? Tell me who has been this successful with high intensity training?

Lastly, how do you think your message would be received if you were a world class runner or a world class coach with a few olympic medal winners in your stable?

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 08:43 AM               

My credentials, running experience, background, and the extensive body of research I have used in formulating my theories are prominently posted to my web site and have been since I started the site years back. This is not a topic I shy away from, hence the reason that stuff has been on my web site since the beginning. One need only go there to read them.

Again, this isn't about me, but I understand why some want to make it about me.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 08:56 AM               

We can't discuss physiology on its scientific points when it is clear to everyone that you are attempting to talk over your head. When people come after you because you are talking above your understanding and ability, they are not dodging the issue or using a weak argument....they are indicating why YOUR argument can't be taken with merit.

Let's take a real-life analogy. On anothher board an individual was arguing with me about evolution. He had clear misunderstandings about the principles and biology behind evolution. As a biologist, I nicely explained the science to him and pointed to some references. He continued to spout ill-thought and meaningless gibberish, so I pointed out that we could not seriously debate the topic if he was not going to educate himself on the basic principles of biology behind the subject. He replied EXACTLY as you...I was questioning him personally, so my argument must be weak...but nothing was further from the truth.

I think some interesting questions have been posed to you. If your theories are correct, you should be able to name some sub-2:30 marathoners or at least semi-elite distance athletes who train as you perscribe. So far we don't have one name.

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 09:00 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
But there is Richard. You just don't want to acknowledge it.

...How is it possible you can ignore success like this and continue to suggest high intensity training is better? Tell me who has been this successful with high intensity training?

---

tigger,

I do ackowledge the information you reference. Take a long look at "the running contradiction" and "the running theory of everything" and you will see that I ackowledge and accept that some number of runners have reported increasing mileage and improving performance.

On the other side of the coin, how many high mileage proponents ackowledge the large body of valid research data contradicting their beliefs? This data set is at least as valid, if not more so, as that to which you refer. Do they ackowledge it or do they do what you suggest I'm doing - either not ackowledge it or, worse, attack it in an attempt to negate it.?

Additionally, how many high mileage/base building proponents ackowledge those who report trying high mileage/base building and not having success with it? Don't those reports count too? After all the data in those reports is as good as the info you point to.

I'll even go so far as to say that all three sets of data above are factual. Some runners who try high mileage/base building improve, some do not, and a large body of credible data suggests high mileage/base building is not right for everyone. If all 3 are right, then shouldn't a valid training theory accurately account for all 3? Or should our theory dismiss some of the data sets as non-credible?

To my eyes high mileage/base building theory does not accept all 3 factual data sets. It dismisses 2 of them. To my eyes high intensity theory does not accept all 3 factual data sets. It dismisses 1 of them.

In my opinion, only 1 theory accepts and explains all 3 data sets, despite their seemingly contradictory results. The Running Theory of Everything is the only theory I know of that accounts for all the known data without selectively needing to dismiss one or more sets of data.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 09:33 AM            

"Things progressed smoothly until the late 1990s.  For 15 years I had run injury free, following a relatively low mileage, high intensity approach to training.  In the mid '90s, around the time I left the Army, I became much more interested in competitive running.  Leaving the service meant I was no longer obligated to follow the Army's prescribed exercise program; I was free to choose my own.  I had been reading the standard running books of the day, books by Galloway, Henderson, and Higdon amongst others, and decided to adopt a more conventional training program - namely increasing mileage to improve performance.  Bad choice.  Instead of improving my performance, I ended up injured.  And injury followed injury, finally resulting in knee surgery on both knees (though to be fair, my days as a paratrooper probably made me more susceptible to knee injury).  For about three years I did almost no running because of various overuse injuries."

Why do you assume that your injuries were from high mileage?
At what heart rate zone did you run?
How fast did you build your miles?
Were you still incorporating speedwork into your training along with the high mileage?

I ask these questions, because your beliefs are that the practice of high mileage is flawed, and perhaps not conducive to health. If the formulation of your beliefs started with your injuries, perhaps you made a wrong, unscientific assumptin that your injuries were due to high mileage. Perhaps, it was something else.

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 09:44 AM               

I have never seen an athlete who increased mileage fail to improve over the long term. Not one...as long as injuries did not become an issue...that is an individual problem and has nothing to do with the validity of the technique.

"or, worse, attack it in an attempt to negate it.?"
--Science is, by nature, critical. Good studies should be able to withstand logical criticism...if they can't they aren't worth the paper they are printed on. This is called peer review. If you knew about science you would understand this rather than using logical criticism as an excuse.

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 09:49 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparrowface:
Why do you assume that your injuries were from high mileage?
At what heart rate zone did you run?
How fast did you build your miles?
Were you still incorporating speedwork into your training along with the high mileage?

I ask these questions, because your beliefs are that the practice of high mileage is flawed, and perhaps not conducive to health. If the formulation of your beliefs started with your injuries, perhaps you made a wrong, unscientific assumptin that your injuries were due to high mileage. Perhaps, it was something else.

---

sparrow,

It is possible that my injuries were not caused by high mileage. I believe the increased mileage is responsible but accept that the possibility does exist that it could be some other factor that I overlooked. Just as it is possible that when someone increases mileage and runs better that the increasing mileage isn't the root cause for that improvement. Other factors could explain the improved performance. Agreed?

Whether my injures are due to high mileage or not I would not base a complete theory of training soley or even mostly on my personal experiences or even anecdotal observation. I would base it on the preponderance of available data. You've been on my web site so you've seen the vast number of studies referenced in my writings. That is what I've primarily based my theories on.

And, for the record, I don't think high mileage training is flawed. Those who don't really understand my theories may have led you astray. I do not recommend low mileage for everyone. The evidence shows that there is a wide variance in genetic talent within the human species. I suggest this fact means that some have the genetic talents to run well from high mileage, some do not. That the broad range of genetic talents means there is a equally broad range of ultimate optimal training load.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 10:01 AM               

You're making the case here that injury is a separate issue from adapation - i.e. high mileage is better but the individual can't reach it due to injury. Can you support this theory with any data? Why does someone suffer an intrinsic injury in the first place? What is the relation between an increase in training load and ability to adapt to that load? What are the results when improvements in performance are compared amongst subjects training at different training loads? Do the higher mileage subjects always outperform the lower mileage subjects when other factors are controlled?

quote:

---

Good studies should be able to withstand logical criticism

---

Sure they should. No question about it. What they don't have to withstand is illogical, invalid, and/or immaterial criticism which is then used to claim the study is irrelevant, useless, or non-credible.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 10:02 AM            

I have great respect for those who once were slow like me but now are faster. The most common element in all of their stories (and this data set is probably a couple of hundred runners of varying ability - some on this website and some involved in this discussion) is that their improvement was built on steadily increasing mileage. Others (a few) have said they believed intensity was the way to go but none of these said they had ever tried higher easy mileage. (I have tried both by the way.)

I've also met many runners who felt their mileage was limited by a propensity to get injured. Most runners who managed to get through this stage say their injuries were due to poor running form or poor shoes. This tells me that injuries are more of an excuse than a reason not to run more, and that most injury sources can be corrected to enable runners to reach their full potential.

I have not met any non responders. Possibly this is because running is not an easy sport to love and anyone who doesn't get a positive response will likely stop running and try something else. In any case, I'm pretty sure there aren't a whole lot of non responders out there, and besides, we can't built training programs for everyone based on their limited abilities.

So based on this "evidence" I choose to run more miles to get better. I posted my results for you specifically some weeks ago. I have not followed up with a race or even another threshold run since then, but my mileage remains at the same level (and intensity) and I will probably try a 10k race next month, after six solid months of base work. I will certainly let you know the results so that you can add them to your data bank.

Thanks for your insight.

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 10:39 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Additionally, how many high mileage/base building proponents ackowledge those who report trying high mileage/base building and not having success with it?

---

I have been running seriously for 18 months now and am involved in a number of running groups. To feed my obsessive-compulsive personality, I have devoured every running book that I can get my hands on in order to better understand the science of improving running performance. In my limited experience, I can honestly say that every single person who has disciplined themselves to safely build miles to a higher base (over 50 mpw) has shown improvement. There are other factors that certainly play a part such as diet, amount of sleep, emotional stress, etc. However, I'm just not aware of anyone "not having success" as your studies have.

Now I have seen plenty of times when people would increase mileage, but not curb intensity and eventually these people would run out of gas. I've also seen many people try going from a 20 mpw base and then start running 40 mile weeks without proper build-up and sometimes (not always surprisingly) injure themselves in the process. But when done safely and smartly, I've never seen anyone not have success. I live in Missouri which is the Show-Me state. There are all sorts of theories out there on all sorts of things. I only buy into those that I can see the results.

Lastly, Richard99's studies seem to assume two things that don't apply to most of us here:
Assumption #1: running is work and runners would prefer to maximize results on the least amount of training
Assumption #2: results can be measured in a relatively short period of time

As we all know, running and improving running performance is a labor of love. Not only do we have diminishing returns as we improve (and age), but there is an incredible amount of patience that has to go into running if we are going to realize our full potential. Studies that last less than two years just aren't going to be able to provide the proper data for running results because the sport of distance running has so much cumulative effect. So if you are looking for a shortcut and mediocre results, then you might want to try something like the Furman schedule, which does in fact meet SOME people's goals. However, the majority of us here at Cool Running are in it for the long haul. Diminishing returns? Fine with me, as long as there are still some "returns."

------------------
Will be running Marine Corps Marathon on October 29, 2006 and the New Las Vegas Marathon on December 10, 2006

My Running Log

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 11:30 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lofcaudio:
In my limited experience, I can honestly say that every single person who has disciplined themselves to safely build miles to a higher base (over 50 mpw) has shown improvement. There are other factors that certainly play a part such as diet, amount of sleep, emotional stress, etc. However, I'm just not aware of anyone "not having success" as your studies have.

---

Lofcaudio,

Determing the influence of mileage on performance is not a particularly hard thing to do. It's a basic correlation calcualtion. Let's work through the basic logic of evaluating the influence of mileage on performance, using as our starting point your premise that the vast majority of individuals who increase mileage in a reasonable manner will experience an improvement in their performance.

The belief that all or most runners improve performance as their weekly mileage increases is not hard to measure and should be clearly evident. All we need to do is get 2 or more sufficiently sized groups of runners and have them train at different weekly mileages with all other variable being the same (intensity, duration, & frequency). Then we compare the differences in performance across the groups. If increasing mileage is strongly correlated with improved performance, then those who run higher mileage will have improved more than those running lower mileage.

Exercise physiologists have done this and the results have been published. Care to guess what the results show?

quote:

---

Studies that last less than two years just aren't going to be able to provide the proper data for running results because the sport of distance running has so much cumulative effect.

---

You suggest that it takes 2 years of increased mileage before the results of increasing mileage occur. Do you realize that a factor that takes 2 years before its influence can be seen or measured is not a strong influencer of performance? This is not to say that it's does not have an influence on performance. This is to say, however, that the influence is quite mild.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited May-26-2006).]

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited May-26-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted May-26-2006 12:07 PM               

"The belief that all or most runners improve performance as their weekly mileage increases is not hard to measure and should be clearly evident. All we need to do is get 2 or more sufficiently sized groups of runners and have them train at different weekly mileages with all other variable being the same (intensity, duration, & frequency). Then we compare the differences in performance across the groups. If increasing mileage is strongly correlated with improved performance, then those who run higher mileage will have improved more than those running lower mileage. "

No no no no no!!! This has been explained to you before.

You cannot measure the efficacy of increasing mileage by comparing groups of runners. Variances in natural talent, among other things skew the results. To measure the effectiveness of increasing mileage you need to compare the results of individual runners as they increase their mileage over time. Have your subjects train at 20mpw for a time, then 40, then 60, then 80, then 100 and compare each individual's results at each level. Then you will have a meaningful study, though I could already tell you the results.

IP: Logged