Training

 

The Running Theory of Everything

Part 1 - The Running Contradiction

 

A contradiction exists in the running world that I believe is important to both acknowledge and address.  This contradiction is at the center of the debate currently going on in the running community between those who advocate high mileage as necessary for optimal performance and those, like myself, who are not convinced that high mileage is necessary for all.  Furthermore, until this contradiction is acknowledged by the majority, the debate over the necessity of high mileage will never be resolved.  Finally, until the contradiction is acknowledged by the scientific community researchers are unlikely to focus any research efforts on solving the problem.

This article will, therefore, examine in some detail the running contradiction – why it exists, what each side is saying, and the evidence used in support of particular arguments.  Examining the details and arguments made by each side will result in a basic understanding of the contradiction.  Once the contradiction is evident we can then discuss what needs to be done next.  We start with the high mileage crowd.

Higher Mileage

The higher mileage crowd generally prescribes higher mileage for everyone. Basically the belief is "run more to run better".  This group believes that any and all runners will improve their performance when mileage is increased.  If you are currently running 40 miles per week (mpw), then your performance will continue to improve as you increase to 50 mpw, then 60 mpw, then 70 mpw, etc.  Based on the teachings of famed coach Arthur Lydiard the high mileage group often suggests about 100 miles per week as optimal for all runners, with some advocates suggesting weekly mileage as high as 150 mpw.

The high mileage proponents use two points as their primary evidence supporting their belief in the superiority of higher mileage.  These two points are a) all elites run high mileage and b) personal experience. 

In the first case, high mileage proponents point out that all elite runners run relatively high weekly mileage, usually in excess of 100 miles per week.  There is no debate on this topic – elites do run high mileage.  Using this fact the high mileage proponents then conclude that since elites are the fastest runners on earth and since all elites run high mileage, this proves that high mileage is optimal – i.e. the high mileage is the reason the elites run so fast. 

High mileage proponents also point out that not only do today’s elites run high mileage, but elites have been running high mileage for about the past 40 years or so. The argument here is that if high mileage were not necessary for optimal performance then elites would have discovered it by now and some elites would have become elites without having run high mileage.  The absence of any low mileage elites is seen as further evidence of the necessity and effectiveness of higher mileage training.

The second argument put forth by high mileage proponents is personal experience – i.e. I increased my weekly mileage from 25 mpw to 50 mpw and my performance improved.  Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of runners have testified that they increased their weekly mileage and their performance improved.  In all cases the increase in weekly mileage is credited with the improved performance.

These two beliefs – elites run high mileage and personal experience – form the bedrock argument for the superiority of high mileage training.

Research

Challenging the belief in the effectiveness of higher mileage training is a significant body of scientific research.  Exercise scientists have been studying endurance exercise for more than 100 years.  Researchers have studied beginners and experienced exercisers, elites and non-elites, adults and children, heart patients and healthy subjects – just about every classification of humans has been studied at one time or the other.  Research has ranged from the most basic of observational studies to examining the minutia of cells under an electron microscope, all in an effort to fully understand both how the body works and how to make it work better.  The result of all the effort by exercise scientists for the past 100 years has been the accumulation of a large body of readily available research on endurance performance.

What does the available research have to say about the influence of increasing weekly mileage on running performance?  In my article “Why increasing mileage improves performance” I reviewed 20 research studies conducted within the last 30 or so years with data on the effect of increasing mileage.  Other researchers have gone even further back and have reviewed 40+ research studies with data on the effect of increasing mileage.  Of this body of research 1) there are no controlled studies that show higher mileage produces superior race performance and 2) the effectiveness of higher mileage is contradicted by multiple research studies. The research doesn’t just indicate that higher mileage doesn’t improve performance, in many cases it shows that higher mileage results in poorer performance.  Additionally, I have been able to find only 1 observational study that showed a positive influence due to increased weekly mileage.  It would be one thing if there were a significant number of contradictory research studies on this topic, but that simply isn't the case.  The research is near unanimous on this topic – increasing mileage does not have anywhere close to the significant effect on performance as the high mileage proponents would have you believe and oftentimes increasing mileage results in a poorer, not better, performance.  If you want a more in-depth review of the research you might begin by reading the articles “Why Increasing Mileage Improves Performance” and “Do All Runners Benefit from Increasing Mileage” in the training section of this web site.

The Contradiction

This brings us to the heart of the contradiction.  Namely, if increasing weekly mileage measurably improves performance as the high mileage proponents flatly state, if increasing mileage is such a potent influencer of performance, then why isn’t it reflected in any of the research studies?  If increasing weekly mileage is as effective as its believers suggest it should be easy to research and confirm.  Scientists are not ignorant of the debate over the influence of increasing weekly mileage and multiple research studies have been done that directly or indirectly address this question.  Yet the research evidence simply does not support the belief that increasing mileage is as effective or potent as the high mileage proponents preach.  These two contradict each other - elites/personal experience vs. research – causing a debate within the running community.

The Debate

The contradiction is at the root of the debate raging in the running community today.  The higher mileage crowd points to the elites and says "see, this proves higher mileage is best". The other side points to the research and say "look at all the research that has been done and it all points to quality over quantity".  Each side believes they are right and the other side is wrong.  After all, how can you question the evidence being presented by either side?!

The really interesting thing is that both sides are right.  Elites do run high mileage and anecdotal evidence is that their performance improves with increases in mileage up to somewhere around 100 mpw.  And hundreds to thousands of runners have increased their weekly mileage and seen their performance improve significantly. 

Conversely many, many research studies have been done showing that increasing mileage is not a potent influencer of performance and that running higher mileage does not always result in improved performance – sometimes increased weekly mileage produces a drop in performance.

The evidence supporting each side is correct and since both sides are right, a contradiction exists, spurring a debate in the running community, with the two sides pitted endlessly against each other.

Each side attacks the other side’s evidence.  “The research is flawed” shout the high mileage advocates, pointing out real and imagined weaknesses in each individual study.  No research study is immune from attack – anything that remotely contradicts their so fervent belief in the superiority of high mileage is assaulted with untiring vigor.  So enthusiastic is their attack of any and all research that one high mileage proponent used an article that called into question the ethics of a very few scientists throughout the ages to suggest that, therefore, all research is suspect and should be dismissed when it contradicted anecdotal observation.  But, despite their fervent desire to dismiss it, the research is valid, accurate, and contradicts the belief in high mileage training for all.

“Sure elites run high mileage, but that certainly doesn’t prove that high mileage is necessary for all.  Just because you increased mileage and your performance improved doesn’t mean that the increase in mileage caused the improvement.  After all, you increased your level of intensity too.” And so on go the points made by those swayed by the research evidence.  Yet, despite the reams of research data and technical mumbo jumbo the fact exists that elites do seem to thrive on higher mileage training and many, many runners have increased weekly mileage and enjoyed a satisfying jump in performance.

Which side you fall on depends on which set of data you find most compelling.  Anecdotal data of elites and personal experience can be quite persuasive, nudging the runner towards the high mileage group.  Those who demand more rigorous analysis find the research to be more conclusive, resulting in an espousal of quality over quantity.

The bottom line is that since the evidence used by both sides is correct and accurate, the debate goes on endlessly, with no clear resolution in sight.

The Next Step

I suggest that at we as a running community are now at the point where the next major step in run training evolution is to a) recognize there is a contradiction and b) to then go to work to solve the contradiction, to answer the question, “why is there such a difference between the anecdotal observation on the effectiveness of higher mileage and the research on this same topic?”

However, until it is widely recognized that a contradiction exists, we (the running community) won't be able to solve the contradiction. Until there is agreement that a contradiction exists no work will be done to solve the contradiction.  Instead, whenever someone brings up a new research study – see “Successful Marathoning on Just 3 Running Days per Week” in the training section of this web site as an example - instead of acknowledging that a contradiction exists, the debate will start all over again with the exact same results every time.  The high mileage advocates will dig in their heels, attack the research and all who support it, and basically refuse to consider why the results came out the way they did. The high mileage proponents are so convinced that high mileage benefits all that any suggestion/research/person who suggests otherwise is met with immediate hostility.   Of course it doesn't help when the quality over quantity advocates fan the flame by trotting out the latest in a seemingly never ending line of research articles that challenge the high mileage crowd, taunting them with it.

Here's my call to anyone who will listen. Review the evidence and decide if the contradiction as I have laid it out here does indeed exist. If it does, then forever stop arguing "high mileage" vs "high quality" and start working on solving the contradiction.  When the contradiction is fully solved, the running community will have made the next major breakthrough in our training evolution - a breakthrough that I think will be as significant and long lasting as any that came before.

Is there a reasonable answer to the contradiction?  I think so.  In parts 2 and 3 of this series I propose The Running Theory of Everything which I believe forever solves the running contradiction.