IndianaRunner

[1bob11]

In my opinion people have kind of been convinced to think that 80+ mileage is too much running, but it may not be true. A lot of people that post negative things about high mileage are often injured all the time and are just callus and like to discourage it because it didn't work for them. My biggest pet peeve is when I hear people say that you need to take a rest day once a week or that you need this and need that. What you need is some proper training that will help you reach your potential and leave your body prepared for college.

[TitusStorm]

In my opinion people have kind of been convinced to think that 80+ mileage is too much running, but it may not be true. A lot of people that post negative things about high mileage are often injured all the time and are just callus and like to discourage it because it didn't work for them. My biggest pet peeve is when I hear people say that you need to take a rest day once a week or that you need this and need that. What you need is some proper training that will help you reach your potential and leave your body prepared for college.

I really like this post. Of course I have always been a proponent of high mileage even in high school, but it's the preparation for college that I really agree with here. Now that means different things for different people, but too many people LOVE the word potential. They see guys running well off 30mpw in high school and think they will be legends once they start training for real, but a lot of them can't make the transition to college training. It often takes 2-3 years for them to adapt to a higher intensity and the volume of the workouts whereas guys who train hard and smart in high school are able to transition better to college training and are able to compete well and contribute to their team much sooner than projects with great "potential". It's also a common myth that guys who run a lot of miles in high school can't improve much in college. If you run 80-90 a week in high school, you have a large amount that you can improve. A lot of guys will increase up to 120(30-40 per week increase) while also increasing volume and intensity in workouts and intensity in daily runs and also adding in plyometrics and core to the equation. So if it's the myth that you can't get better or you'll burn out that's stopping you from training the way you want, then don't buy it and test your limits. Just be smart about hydration, flexibility, sleep, and nutrition.

[TREATED]

treated

[ZEMAE001]

Do you guys have an opinion on an upper weekly mileage limit for high school? I'm big on specificity of training. If you're training to run 3.1 miles, I've never quite understood this fascination with running 50+ miles in a week. It seems to me there is a certain point where increasing your mileage will start to have a diminishing return in training for a 5K.

[WarriorXC09]

Do you guys have an opinion on an upper weekly mileage limit for high school? I'm big on specificity of training. If you're training to run 3.1 miles, I've never quite understood this fascination with running 50+ miles in a week. It seems to me there is a certain point where increasing your mileage will start to have a diminishing return in training for a 5K.

LOL. If you think you'll get faster at 5K by running 30 a week forever go for it. The only reason most high schoolers don't run higher mileage is because:

A. their bodies are still developing and it takes time to get acclimated to higher mileage.
B. Alot of high schools don't put stock into XC and track programs, and hire coaches that don't know what they are doing.

There are not alot of high schoolers going over 100mpw, but plenty run 50, 60, 70, and a fair amount are in the 80s. Simply put, the way to get faster at any distance event, is to run more, and run faster. I would only consider your diminishing return for 5K training for someone over 130 then your into serious distance races. I would only consider that though, if that person was training for a marathon specifically and wasn't including 5K training in their plan. If their training focused soley on 5K training and they were 120, 130 mpw etc then they WOULD get faster at the 5K. Ask Bekele (WR holder in the 5K) how much he ran per week. In fact, ask many of the top 5K guys what they run per week. I would bet you anything it's 50+

[ZEMAE001]

Do you guys have an opinion on an upper weekly mileage limit for high school? I'm big on specificity of training. If you're training to run 3.1 miles, I've never quite understood this fascination with running 50+ miles in a week. It seems to me there is a certain point where increasing your mileage will start to have a diminishing return in training for a 5K.

LOL. If you think you'll get faster at 5K by running 30 a week forever go for it. The only reason most high schoolers don't run higher mileage is because:

A. their bodies are still developing and it takes time to get acclimated to higher mileage.
B. Alot of high schools don't put stock into XC and track programs, and hire coaches that don't know what they are doing.

There are not alot of high schoolers going over 100mpw, but plenty run 50, 60, 70, and a fair amount are in the 80s. Simply put, the way to get faster at any distance event, is to run more, and run faster. I would only consider your diminishing return for 5K training for someone over 130 then your into serious distance races. I would only consider that though, if that person was training for a marathon specifically and wasn't including 5K training in their plan. If their training focused soley on 5K training and they were 120, 130 mpw etc then they WOULD get faster at the 5K. Ask Bekele (WR holder in the 5K) how much he ran per week. In fact, ask many of the top 5K guys what they run per week. I would bet you anything it's 50+

80+ miles? I'm sorry but that's ridiculous for a high school athlete training to run 3.1 miles. I'm not saying run 30 miles a week and nothing else. I'm merely positing that 30 miles (long and slower) mixed with 10+ miles of shorter, faster work bouts would give a much better return on time invested than simply running 80+ slower miles. And if you're a high school athlete running 80 miles a week, where do you have time for rest, recovery, school work, family, etc. We're not talking about world record holders who run for a living.

I have no clue where the graph would start flat lining regarding diminishing returns, but I would certainly think it is far, far before 80 miles for a high school runner.

[WarriorXC09]

Kyle Overway managed just fine. I know that's only one example, he doesn't count blah blah blah. I challenge you to find out what the nations top runners where running this past season. They don't even have to be elite, plenty of guys around the country run 70-80 mpw. IN fact, even in just INDIANA I can prove it to you on a smaller scale. In the "how much are you running for peak mileage this summer poll" 6 athletes said 80+, 3 said 70-80, 7 said 60-70, 7 said 50-60 Only 13 athletes in a poll of 34 are peaking at 50 or less miles. And, I assure you, the 60, 70 ,80, 90 guys, they aren't running all"slow" miles. Obviously they would do speed work and otherwise just like someone doing 40mpw, just more of it. You can't expect freshman or sophmores to be doing 80mpw in high school, but there are plenty of athletes around the country that have worked up to that mileage. You have to be able to handle the mileage. If your body can handle 70 or 80mpw, then there is no reason why you CAN'T run that in high school. It's a coaches job to find out how many mpw someone can do. I don't think you are grasping the concept here.

I have no clue where the graph would start flat lining regarding diminishing returns, but I would certainly think it is far, far before 80 miles for a high school runner.

it all depends on what training you've done prior and what your times and talent are. However, in many cases, you would be incorrect.

[tomwelling]

80+ miles? I'm sorry but that's ridiculous for a high school athlete training to run 3.1 miles. I'm not saying run 30 miles a week and nothing else. I'm merely positing that 30 miles (long and slower) mixed with 10+ miles of shorter, faster work bouts would give a much better return on time invested than simply running 80+ slower miles. And if you're a high school athlete running 80 miles a week, where do you have time for rest, recovery, school work, family, etc. We're not talking about world record holders who run for a living.

I have no clue where the graph would start flat lining regarding diminishing returns, but I would certainly think it is far, far before 80 miles for a high school runner.

You are clearly and unequivocally wrong.

[Illegitimate]

Do you guys have an opinion on an upper weekly mileage limit for high school? I'm big on specificity of training. If you're training to run 3.1 miles, I've never quite understood this fascination with running 50+ miles in a week. It seems to me there is a certain point where increasing your mileage will start to have a diminishing return in training for a 5K.

http://www.runningfreeonline.com/Magazine/Features/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/175/Mileage-Matters

“I have always found at 80 to 90 miles a week I improve and thrive – more than that and I start to get ill and over-tired. And if I do less I just don’t improve!

“When I was training for what was my fastest marathon [2:36:31] in 1986, I also ran my fastest 5k, 10k and half marathon in the lead up to my personal best in The London Marathon so the high mileage can benefit all distances of racing.”

Also Austin Mudd, in a flotrack.org interview after the Dream Mile where he ran a 4:01, was quoted saying he ran 80mpw. Our state record holder in the 800 runs 80mpw.

[kg_FTW]

lets just say that last year as a senior at noblesville. My average mileage a week was about 45. not much.... but somehow we were able to have 4 sub 15:50 guys and me myself run 15:48

[PreLives]

Let's just say last year as a junior I heard through the grape vine that Columbus North was averageing way more than 45 miles a week. much......and some how they were able to have 6 sub 15:50 guys. ......................................................?some how??

[caballoblanco11]

People's bodies respond differently to different training. We talk about training as if there's a perfect way to train. And maybe there is... for an individual. But coaches nor HIGH SCHOOL athletes know the athlete's body well enough to project a perfect training schedule and perfect peak. Sometimes there are things that you cannot avoid, such as flu, The Root Monster grabbing your ankle, car accidents (Kyle Marx PT Miler from 2010 missed regionals due to a concussion) which can ruin a training schedule. The goal of training (as told to me by Rick Weinheimer CN's head coach) is to get to the starting line healthy. If your training interferes with that goal, then you aren't correctly training. The goal of the coach is then to train his athletes to get to the starting line healthy. Now, if you have a bigger program, like the North Centrals and Carmels and Columbus North's of the world, you are able to take more risks, knowing that at the end of the season only the best trained (healthiest) survive. So if a school like Carmel to throws 80 miles a week at its runners, some will get hurt, but many more will be in phenomenal shape to perform. Now take a 3A or 2A school like Pendleton Heights or Guerin. Would it be wise to send their runners on near-suicide missions of 80+ miles? No, because if they lose one runner out of that top tier, their chances are shot. We always say that the big schools reload after losing a bunch of seniors, but they can also reload in the middle of the season after losing a 4th or 5th man to injury.

For an individual top-tier athlete to run 70-80 miles a week is one thing, and that's to be expected. However, a whole new realm is entered when we talk about programs throwing that much milage at their runners. Not everyone can survive at the top.

[WarriorXC09]

Now, if you have a bigger program, like the North Centrals and Carmels and Columbus North's of the world, you are able to take more risks, knowing that at the end of the season only the best trained (healthiest) survive. So if a school like Carmel to throws 80 miles a week at its runners, some will get hurt, but many more will be in phenomenal shape to perform.

no coaches or schools do that, this is a ridiculous statement. Seriously, what sane coach says this to himself "Oh yeah I'll send all my athletes out to do 80mpw most of em will get hurt but I'll weed out the good ones and have myself a stellar team" Come on man use some common sense. Your talking about big programs yes, but programs with very very good coaches, that know what they're doing and would never jepordize the health or development of runners for the sake of finding the best. Some of those runners could be very good down the road and coaches don't want them injured their whole careers.

[tomwelling]

Now, if you have a bigger program, like the North Centrals and Carmels and Columbus North's of the world, you are able to take more risks, knowing that at the end of the season only the best trained (healthiest) survive. So if a school like Carmel to throws 80 miles a week at its runners, some will get hurt, but many more will be in phenomenal shape to perform.

no coaches or schools do that, this is a ridiculous statement. Seriously, what sane coach says this to himself "Oh yeah I'll send all my athletes out to do 80mpw most of em will get hurt but I'll weed out the good ones and have myself a stellar team" Come on man use some common sense. Your talking about big programs yes, but programs with very very good coaches, that know what they're doing and would never jepordize the health or development of runners for the sake of finding the best. Some of those runners could be very good down the road and coaches don't want them injured their whole careers.

This.

Besides, what makes you think Columbus North and Carmel have more injuries than everyone else?

[Runnerdoc]

Interesting debate however let me assure you that Carmel does not have its runners at 80 miles per week!!

[caballoblanco11]

Now, if you have a bigger program, like the North Centrals and Carmels and Columbus North's of the world, you are able to take more risks, knowing that at the end of the season only the best trained (healthiest) survive. So if a school like Carmel to throws 80 miles a week at its runners, some will get hurt, but many more will be in phenomenal shape to perform.

no coaches or schools do that, this is a ridiculous statement. Seriously, what sane coach says this to himself "Oh yeah I'll send all my athletes out to do 80mpw most of em will get hurt but I'll weed out the good ones and have myself a stellar team" Come on man use some common sense. Your talking about big programs yes, but programs with very very good coaches, that know what they're doing and would never jepordize the health or development of runners for the sake of finding the best. Some of those runners could be very good down the road and coaches don't want them injured their whole careers.

This.

Besides, what makes you think Columbus North and Carmel have more injuries than everyone else?

What makes me think that Carmel and CN have more injuries is logic. The more runners you have, the more injured runners you will have. I realize that Carmel isn't a high-milage program at all, but it was purely an example of a big school, my fault. Good coaches would never intentionally jeopardize their runners, but not everyone's body is capable of the training that the coaching staff sets forth. I'm simply saying that with a bigger program, higher milage is less risky, as they have more athletes to fill in. And sorry, but I think that there are kids who will get injured because they follow their coach to a T, because they wanna be the best, but their bodies simply aren't capable and neither the coach nor the athlete knows that. The coach does not intentionally injure people, but people will get injured as a result of the coach's training.

[Run_4_Life]

I kind of agree that larger teams are able to take more risks in training. By this statement I do not mean that the coach is not looking out for his athletes, and I am sure that the other post did not mean that either. I do not think I have ever met a coach who did not deeply care about his athletes. Let's face it, cross country coaching positions probably aren't the highest paid and they don't receive a ton of recognition in the community either... so they must be in the coaching position because they care about the athletes and the sport. But back to my original statement, when you have about 20+ kids on your team, two things can occur. One, the coach can not specialize his training program for each athelete. When you have less than 7, the coach can kind of give each athlete something to do each day depending on his/her ability, but when you start getting more and more athletes, the workout becomes more of a group thing than an individual. I came from a small team that could barely field a full team, so our coach knew that he had to design workouts for each athlete to keep them healthy so we could have a team compete in each meet. I don't think we ever had an athlete sit out one meet because he/she wasn't feeling good to go for that meet... the only time we had a person sit out was if he/she was truly injured and normally would be out for multiple meets. When you have a larger team you can put in more strenuous workouts and if an athlete is feeling injured for a meet at the beginning of the season they can just sit them out and run another in his/her place because the coach knows it will be alright... but the coach is still looking towards the end of the season and is of course trying to peak the athlete for them and save them for them.

Also, on the big team/injury side of things... have you ever watched the Long Green Line? Everyone knows that York has a massive program, and during the year that the film was made, they lost I think 3 of their original top 7 due to injury or suspension. They were still able to reload due to the size of their team, and the athlete were able to step up in part due to the strenuous workouts they do that help them improve. At a program like that you can develop your younger/less experienced athletes over time without having to worry about racing them each week. At a smaller program sometimes these athletes are actaully important part of the team right away, and a coach has to modify the training that he/she can do for these athletes because they have to be ready to race each week.

[4SStar4sstar]

I do not think I have ever met a coach who did not deeply care about his athletes.


suspension.

Give it time..hopefully you never do but they are out there.

Suspension...darn vandals

-4sstar

[tomwelling]

What makes me think that Carmel and CN have more injuries is logic. The more runners you have, the more injured runners you will have.

So injuries are purely a function of the number of runners you have? In that case, what does it have to do with high mileage?

Or are you arguing that runners at, say, Columbus North get injured at a higher rate than at schools with less "risky" training? In which case: what makes you think that runners at Columbus North get injured at a higher rate than anyone else?

[4SStar4sstar]

Now, if you have a bigger program, like the North Centrals and Carmels and Columbus North's of the world, you are able to take more risks, knowing that at the end of the season only the best trained (healthiest) survive. So if a school like Carmel to throws 80 miles a week at its runners, some will get hurt, but many more will be in phenomenal shape to perform.

no coaches or schools do that, this is a ridiculous statement. Seriously, what sane coach says this to himself "Oh yeah I'll send all my athletes out to do 80mpw most of em will get hurt but I'll weed out the good ones and have myself a stellar team" Come on man use some common sense. Your talking about big programs yes, but programs with very very good coaches, that know what they're doing and would never jepordize the health or development of runners for the sake of finding the best. Some of those runners could be very good down the road and coaches don't want them injured their whole careers.

This.

Besides, what makes you think Columbus North and Carmel have more injuries than everyone else?

We agree? Is it snowing in hell today?

I think the only thing I could say is that percentage wise it's easier for those schools to technically have more injuries based on their numbers...but they most certainly aren't throwing 80mi/wks at their athletes just to weed out the best and let the others get hurt. That's beyond absurd.


-4sstar

[ryan_horner]

first off, let me start by saying that i come from a dinky school where each and ever runner has a customized workout daily. i myself am more of a high mileage guy (70-80 miles per week) by preference. my training is bizarre because during high school i trained at the two opposing ends of the spectrum. from june until november i was high mileage, and from december until may i was about 30 miles a week, York high school style training almost, with repetitions every single day. I realized that i do SOOOOO much better with high mileage, and i'm unbelievably happy that i now get the chance to be high mileage year round. however, i had teammates that fell apart at anything over 45-50 miles a week, but thrived during track and broke a few school records in the process. Basically, specialization is the key and I will NEVER lay down a blanket program for my team when i become a coach.

** i should explain my high mileage. 1 loong run a week, 1 tempo run, 1 hill day, and the rest are just moderate days, usually never more than 2 days of doubles. (during the summer when i'm laying down a base) i feel that this way i get a great variety. my shorter 5-6 mile runs i can hit it a little harder, i have a tempo, a long run, hills, and a few 8-10 milers.

I'll end by quoting Seb Coe. As you know, he was coached by his engineer father, Peter Coe. Seb said "He has no other runners. People ask if he will coach them and he says, 'I don't know enough about you. I'd have to move in with you." Peter coe believed that he was only able to coach his son because he knew all the little details about how his son reacted to every aspect of training. He believed that he actually would have to move in with anyone he coached so that he could learn enough to be an effective coach.

[sbrcross]

The theory that coaches throw mileage at athletes that they cant handle because they have enough runners is ridiculous. No coach would be that reckless with their runners. As for running higher mileage, Ive seen nothing but improvement since Ive increased mileage. As a freshman last year i ran around 30mpw and after I made the jump to around 50mpw I saw my abilities increase dramatically.

[TheChasePack]

80+ miles? I'm sorry but that's ridiculous for a high school athlete training to run 3.1 miles. I'm not saying run 30 miles a week and nothing else. I'm merely positing that 30 miles (long and slower) mixed with 10+ miles of shorter, faster work bouts would give a much better return on time invested than simply running 80+ slower miles. And if you're a high school athlete running 80 miles a week, where do you have time for rest, recovery, school work, family, etc. We're not talking about world record holders who run for a living.

I have no clue where the graph would start flat lining regarding diminishing returns, but I would certainly think it is far, far before 80 miles for a high school runner.

If you are using "diminishing returns" in the right way then I definitely see where you are getting at. The problem is that it is an absolutely terrible way to look at your training. Really I would say you would start to get diminishing returns at about 10 miles per week. Here is a made up estimate of what that would look like:

No running - 25:00
10 mpw - 22:00
20 mpw - 20:00
30 mpw - 19:00
40 mpw - 18:00
50 mpw - 17:30
60 mpw - 17:00
70 mpw - 16:40
80 mpw - 16:20
90 mpw - 16:00

Now I realize that mpw is not that directly related to time and there are a few other factors (although not as many as most people want to believe) but this is just an example of diminishing returns at 10 mpw (or close to that). You are going to get your most improvement as soon as you start running and everything from there will be diminishing returns (i.e. less of an improvement than the previous improvement). I believe that to be about as true of a fact about running as is possible.

What I got from your post is very similar to what everybody else who is against high mileage is saying in the back of their head. "Do I really want to spend an extra 30 minutes a day running if it will only make me 30-40 seconds faster? It would be so much easier just to do a quick mile repeats workout or run 4 miles faster than usual and be done for the day!" That is the real issue with high mileage and why so many people are so in denial of it. I'm pro high mileage and it is difficult for me to get over 90 some weeks. It's not because I can't or don't want, it's because I run out of time and cut a couple runs short or procrastinate and miss a run altogether.

Overall, your body doesn't give a darn how many miles you run in a week. There are no coaches in your legs counting every tenth of a mile and marking it on a calender. So really high mileage is a misnomer, I think I will start referring to it as "high minutes training" since the time you are running is really what the body picks up on and adjusts to.

[sbrcross]

30-40 seconds is a lot!

[TheChasePack]

30-40 seconds is a lot!

So would you run 30 minutes more a day (about 30 miles more per week) if you knew that it would make you 30-40 seconds faster? My experience is that most people would not.