|
Home
Physiology
Training
Results
About me
Contact me
Links
|
Why Increasing
Mileage Improves Performance
Part
2
by Richard Gibbens
I began this paper by stating that
runners believe and anecdotal evidence supports the belief that
increasing mileage improves performance. I also noted that research
data contradicts this belief and our review of the research
illustrates this clearly. Which group is right? Does increasing
mileage improve performance? Let’s apply our knowledge of the
influence of duration, intensity, and frequency to answer the
question.
The research clearly shows that
intensity and duration are primary influencers of performance while
frequency exerts a small, secondary influence on performance. Based
on the fact that intensity and duration exert such a strong influence
on performance I suggest that increases in the duration of the long
run, increases in the intensity of training, and/or increases in the
volume of intense training are the primary reasons increasing mileage
improves performance. When a program of increasing mileage includes
an increase in the duration of the long run, an increase in training
intensity, or an increase in the volume of intense training, this
program will produce significantly improved performance. A program of
increasing mileage with no increase in the duration of the long run,
intensity, or volume of intense training will produce little or no
performance improvements.
If longer duration, higher intensity,
and a greater volume of intensity are primarily responsible for
producing improved performance it means the following:
-
An increase in weekly mileage that
includes an increase in the longest run, an increase in intensity,
or an increase in the volume of intense training will result in
improved performance.
-
An increase in weekly mileage that
does not include an increase in the longest run, an increase in
intensity, or an increase in the volume of intense training will
result in little to no improved performance.
-
In training programs with equal
weekly mileage but unequal long run duration, intensity, or volume
of intense training the program with the longer duration, higher
intensity, or greater volume of intense training will produce better
performance.
-
Training programs with unequal
weekly mileage but equal long run duration, intensity, or volume of
intense training will produce equal or nearly equal performances.
-
In training programs with unequal
weekly mileage, duration, intensity, or volume of intense training,
the programs with the greater amount of intensity, duration, or
volume of intense training will produce better performance, even if
the other programs includes significantly higher weekly mileage.
-
A decrease in weekly mileage with no
decrease in long run duration, intensity (especially intensity), or
volume of intense training will allow performance to be maintained
or even improved.
-
Maintaining weekly mileage while
decreasing long run duration, intensity (especially intensity), or
volume of intense training will result in a decrease in performance.
If duration, intensity, and volume of
intense training are responsible for improved performance in a program
of increasing mileage, then it will be reflected in those research
studies that compared different levels of mileage, intensity,
duration, or volume of intensity. The research should show that those
programs with longer duration, higher intensity, or a greater volume
of intense training result in better performance than those programs
with a shorter duration, lower intensity, or a lower volume of intense
training in accordance with our seven postulates above. Our task now
is to review the research to see what it has to say on this subject.
Table 8 sums up the research on this topic.
Table 8: Evidence
that increasing the duration, intensity, and/or volume of intense
training are the primary causes of improved performance
|
Research Study |
Results |
Results support which postulate |
|
Hickson et al (1) |
Increased intensity while holding
duration, intensity & volume steady. Performance increased
signficantly |
1 |
|
Hickson et al (2) |
Reducing training intensity while
maintaining weekly mileage, duration, and frequency resulted in
significant decline in both short and long term performance |
7 |
|
Mikesell & Dudley (3) |
Subjects decreased overall weekly
run mileage 60% while significantly increasing volume of intense
training, resulting in a significant increase in performance |
1, 6 |
|
Gaskill et al (4) |
Increased volume of intense
training by 236%, replacing easy training with intense training
while maintaining training volume. Significant performance
improvement compared to controls. |
3 |
|
Billat et al (5) |
Compared the physical and training
characteristics of the male and female national marathon teams of
Portugal and France. Faster males, but not females, ran higher
weekly mileage. Faster males and females ran greater volume of
intense training than slower male and female marathoners. |
3, 5 |
|
Billat et al (6) |
Compared the training
characteristics of elite Kenyan long distance runners. Faster male and female runners ran lower
total weekly mileage, but a higher volume of intense training |
2, 5 |
|
Hickson et al (7) |
Reduced duration of training by 1/3
or 2/3 while maintaining intensity and frequency. Short term
performance was maintained in both groups. Long term performance
declined in the 2/3 reduction group. |
7 |
|
Dudley et al (8) |
Trained animals at one of six
intensities and at one of 10 durations. Higher intensities and
longer durations produced greater improvements. Improvements
peaked at 60 minutes of exercise duration. |
3, 5 |
|
Pollock et al (9) |
Had subjects train 15, 30, or 45
minutes 3d/wk all at the same intensity. Longer duration produced
significantly greater improvements. |
5 |
|
Hansen et al (10) |
Doubled training duration and 40%
less frequency resulted in approx. 200% better performance |
3 |
|
Hickson et al (12) |
Reduced frequency to either 4
day/wk or 2 day/wk for 10 week while maintaining intensity and
duration. No loss of performance for either decreased frequency
group. |
6 |
|
Crews & Roberts (13) |
Subjects trained at 1 of 2
intensities and 1 of 3 frequencies. Higher intensity groups
outperformed lower intensity groups. No difference in performance
between 3- and 5- day/wk groups. Higher intensity 1 day/wk group
outperformed all lower intensity groups. |
3, 5 |
|
Pollock et al (14) |
Subjects trained either 2 day/week
or 4 day/week with intensity and duration held constant. 4 day/wk
group performance improved insignificantly more than 2 day/week
group. |
4 |
|
Busso et al (15) |
Increase in training frequency and
training volume insignificantly improved performance |
2 |
|
Dolgener et al (16) |
Two groups of marathoners trained
with equal long run and intensity. One group trained more
frequently and with higher volume. No difference in marathon
performance between the two groups. |
2, 4 |
|
Mutton et al (17) |
Subjects either ran 4 day/wk or ran
2 day/wk and cycled 2 day/wk. Duration and intensity were equal
for both groups. Performance improved equally for both groups. |
1, 4 |
|
King et al (20) |
Subjects trained for 2 yrs for 3
day/wk at higher intensity & duration or 5 day/wk at greater
volume & frequency. 3 day/wk group improved significantly more
than 5 day/wk group. |
5 |
|
Iwasaki et al (21) |
Subjects steadily increased weekly
mileage, frequency, long run duration, intensity, and volume of
intensity for 12 months. Performance, as measured by VO2peak,
increased steadily for the entire year. |
1 |
|
Coetzer et al (22) |
Compared physical and training
characteristics of elite South African black and white distance
runners. Performance for both groups was similar at middle
distances, but black runners were significantly faster at longer
distances. Both groups ran same weekly mileage and the black
athletes ran significantly higher volume of intense training. |
3 |
As can be seen from table 8, there is
strong research evidence supporting the idea that duration, intensity,
and volume of intense training are primarily responsible for improved
performance in programs of varying weekly training volumes. When a
runner increases weekly training mileage improvements in performance
that previously have been directly attributed to the increases in
weekly mileage are now shown to be due to an increase in the duration
of the longest run, the intensity of training, or an increase in the
volume of intense training (1, 2, 17, 21). In the case where weekly
mileage is increased in the absence of an increase in duration,
intensity, or volume of intense training performance improves little
to none (6, 13, 15, 16, 17). Conversely, if a runner decreases volume
of training but maintains duration, intensity, or volume of intense
training performance will either be maintained or improved (3, 12).
Lastly, if a runner maintains weekly mileage but decreases duration or
intensity (especially intensity) then performance will decline
significantly despite no decrease in total weekly mileage (2, 7). The
supporting research studies are matched to their corresponding
postulate in table 8.
Table 8: matching each postulate to its
supporting research
|
Postulate |
Supporting research |
|
1 |
1, 2, 17, 21 |
|
2 |
6, 13, 15, 16, 17 |
|
3 |
4,5,8,10,13, 22 |
|
4 |
14, 16, 17 |
|
5 |
5, 6, 8, 13, 20 |
|
6 |
3, 12 |
|
7 |
2, 7 |
In summary, research strongly supports
the idea that improvements accompanying increases in weekly mileage
are due to increases in the duration of the long run, intensity, or
volume of intense training, irrespective of changes in weekly run
mileage. Research further shows that increases in weekly mileage with
no changes in duration, intensity, or volume of intense training
produce little to no improvements in performance.
|