The Mileage Debate: Unpacking Running Volume for Performance

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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"

You have given a lot. Great information again. Loving the videos. Thank you

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?

It's really a mystery to me if all these training theories have ever considered female athletes or they are totally gendered.

So you never actually directly answered but I'd say based on the video that you don't think "Junk MIles" are a thing.

So great. No fluff straight common sense talk backed up with data. Picking up my copy of Win the inside game

Research is better than your of the athletes you coach 🤞🏽.

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!

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.

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?

What is your opinion on the Easy Interval Method by Klaas Lok?

That was very informative, thank you 👍

Another excellent video. How does maintaining high mileage fit with periodization?

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

Incredible overview

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

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.

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

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.

Another banger ! You’re quickly becoming my favorite running channel

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?

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!

Not everyone logs all of their mileage on Strava

Please. Never convert km to miles. This corresponds to turninf gold into straw

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 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 agree 100% more volume! Better performance! Bikila did, Gebre did, Kipchogue did and so on!

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 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.

What about volume for 1600-5k for developing HS runners?

how effective is substituting easy mileage with cross training? eg. David Roche style training. it would be interesting to see a study on this.

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.

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!

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?

steve my good friend and brother, the people are crying out for a video on double run days

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.

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?