For any who think they're not missing anything with lower mileage run training (Page 2)

My n=1 experience from this summer (bike racing)...

I couldn't hold my peak for 4 weeks.  I trained a lot during those 4 weeks...didn't matter.  I peaked for about 2 weeks, then it was decline.

 I disagree.  I find running 30-40 mpw inhibitive to my other training.  I have a "bigger plan" to improve on more sports than running.  So when I scale back to 25mpw it's more likely to maintain while building another sport.  I would never pin running 3min slower in a HM on scaling back to 25mpw.  That's more than enough to maintain.  You've got  a lot of other factors going on here.  I'm with one of the original posters in that it's more likely you're fatigued from other races.

Your assessment makes sense and I would agree for you it was more of a step that caused a drop in performance.  In addition, those are respectable times for a Half at 6:50 min/mile.   On Saturday I did my first Marathon, I learned over the summer it isn't worth discussing training plans because everyone has different goals in performance.  

I can respect everyone's opinion here, but as a longtime runner of 20+ years, and having done everything from low-volume hi-intensity training for years, to high-volume training for years, I disagree with a lot of things said above.

- The typical triathlete will definitely lose some run fitness from a 3 week 50% cut in volume. I'm not saying you're suddenly going to lose 50% of your time, of course not, but I'd say that you've pretty much killed your chances of a true PR with a 3 week taper like that unless you were a pure runner and doing serious run volume (like 55+mpw) beforehand. As said, for a triathlete who already barely does 25mpw, if you cut down to 12mpw 3 weeks before race day, you're definitely not going to run as fast in a HM than had you maintained that 25mpw until the week or week-and-a half before. I think it's bad advice to say a beginner/intermediate runner can expect to go into a running race for a true PR if they'd cut their training volume by 50% for 3-4 weeks prior to race day.

- Again, while the 3 min difference in my race results seems like it could be statistical error, I can assure you it's not. If you were me and felt the difference in leg soreness after each race, it would be stunningly obvious to you, asides from pace, that something was very, very different in race #2. Even if I'd run the same time, I'd say i was significantly off form in the slower race #2, as I could barely walk the next 2 days after the race, whereas race#1 I was completely fine with minimal soreness.

- Nutrition has nothing to do with race performance at the half marathon distance. Ok, if it's 85F+ hot, you'll need to hydrate. Otherwise, for a 90 minute race in cool conditions, you don't need anything at all. You will not get significantly faster with gels or gatorade in a 90 minute race compared to not using it, even all-out. (I did take on-course Gatorade.) For the ironman, nutrition is absolutely crucial, but that's an all-day race. 

- I also doubt postrace fatigue was a factor in my slower time in HM#2. If anything, HM#1 should have been the slow one due to fatigue since that one was run a week after an all-out HIM (my "A" race for the season.) In fact, I definitely did feel some residual fatigue in my legs for HM#1, but nothing compared to the total burning and cramping in HM#2.

- I've been running long enough to clearly know what system is going wrong, and I can say with absolute confidence the problem in HM #2 was lack of leg endurance. Wasn't the cardio, wasn't nutrition, wasn't being overfatigued beforehand. It was the legs simply not being able to maintain the pace I'd held just 3 weeks prior, because of the dropoff in run training volume. Having run 8 marathons in the past, x-country in HS, and over 50 races between 5k and marathon distance, I'm pretty tuned in to what this feels like. Again, this result wasn't a surprise to me - I'm not looking for someone else to explain the situation - I knew that some slowdown of some sort would happen, but I was just impressed with the extent of leg strain I took for races only 3 weeks apart. 

I think you are in denial. If I were coaching you and you came to me with those reasons for having a bad day, we'd go back to your training log and look over training volume, run pace / HR tests, nutrition, resting HR and so on. You may want to familiarize yourself with this story - here's a guy who took a lot of time off from his training, while sick and set world records when he came back:

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2010/04/history-lesson-the-zatopek-effect.html

I'm well familiar with the results of Emil Zatopek, and the multiple stories of other top professionals setting PRs after a late injury requiring 2-3 weeks off. And yes, I do believe these stories.

I also know that these professional athletes do not run a mere 25 miles per week and attempt to then race half marathons or half ironmans, as a lot of triathletes attempt. It's a world of difference to be training at high volume and intensity then taper, then to be already doing too-small a mileage to support a strong race effort at those longer distance races, and then attempt a prolonged taper of 50%+ volume on top of that. 

we know.....we know...... you're different from everyone else because you've been running for years! blah....blah....blah.....  J/K

In all seriousness, you've been given some very good analysis by people who would know, some even professional.  At least consider the fact you are probably mistaken on this.  Maybe expirement with it in training to confirm.  IDK, but don't close your mind to it.  You may miss out on some pretty good training methods

What did you do the day before the race?

How was your nutrition?  Before the race?  In each race?

In my opinion a failure to negative split would indicate:

1) Poor pacing - too fast (but you are too experienced for that)

2) Poor nutrition plan (but you are too experienced for that)

3) Lack of fitness

4) Fatigue

5) Wind, heat, hills or other course conditions

Question to YAZ: If you were evaluating these factors, which would you think is the most likely culprit?

I am not surprised by your findings at all. Your experience mimics mine. Folks here need to understand that less is less, period. I think the push back is coming as some are fighting to believe in the concept the less is more. They have been lead to believe that you can race effectively HM on 25mi/week. Cannot race 5k to your potential at that mileage, let alone a half marathon.

My coach is from that tribe, sent me to run a half marathon with 25mi/week of training. It took me two and a half weeks to recover from that. I paced evenly and drained the tank in the end with a N/S, 1:34:xx, way way short of my 1:29:17 done on 55mi/week. Worse than time, was my recovery from that due to lack of endurance and  durability that actually build one's ability to recover. Much like you, I am not a beginner, this was a way easier course in ideal, no wind, cool weather.

Yes, scary as it sounds, less is less.

Actually, I think that more is more.  Except for the weeks immediately before a race.  And multiple endurance races in 5 weeks is a lot.

A lot of racing /= a lot of training 

 A hard 5k without proper recovery can wreck an ironman weeks later.

I don't think many if any are saying anything like that.  I certainly wasn't.  The issue is not whether one should seek higher volume to achieve better results. (And frankly, while 55mpw sounds like a mountain of volume to most triathletes, it isn't really, for many pure runners.)  The issue is whether three weeks of lower volume after a HM, followed by a sub-par performance on a second HM, says anything at all about the benefits of high volume.  For reasons already stated, I think that it does not.  That claim is a far cry from the claim that less is more.

Tapering, racing, recovering, racing.......all lead to loss of fitness, no denial there. But it all boils down to doing less work, type stimulus that elevates fitness. It comes down to, outside of taper and peaking, 25mi will always be less than 40mi. Fitness is either improving or declining, never stationary. We loose fitness during every taper, but race performance does not suffer due to more freshness, however only during a very narrow time window that we timed peaking for. Hunter/ Coggan, Joe Friel.........

As to volume metrics in running, 55mi is not that much at all, you are correct. But this discussion was not about volume in running, really do not want to hijack it. Yes, majority of AG triathletes do not run nearly enough. The best in our sport, pro or AG are coming from running ranks. Yes, they still run 6 days a week to the tune of 45-60mi in addition to all cycling and swimming. I do not advocate for that mileage for MOP-er triathlete, but at the pointy end, besides having superb bike fitness, these ladies and gentlemen have put it in a lots of running miles. 

Yeah, this.  I don't think anyone is disagreeing that if you safely increase volume you'll improve on your run and that while for a recreational triathlete 20+ miles might be all they can fit in they would likely improve of they got to 40+.  But 3 weeks at a lower volume plus racing 3 weeks after a HIM, I just don't think the result of the slower race is due to that 3 weeks.  IMO it is more likely to not being fully recovered or some other reason.  20+ is enough to maintain over 3 weeks

I don't think a lack of mileage is the issue here; inadequate recovery/taper is. Ummm....a half-marathon a week after a half-ironman? And then another HIM three weeks later?  I'm surprised you didn't sustain a major injury in the process. To the extent that it was a training issue, it's possible that because you were continuously recovering from or tapering for races, you didn't get in much quality training and lost some fitness.  But if you did do quality workouts, you were hurting your recovery/taper. It was a no-win situation.

From experience (from which I apparently never learn), you can "feel" recovered after a long event, esp. if the race went well, even have a good race or two in the next few weeks, then "crash" with lousy performances (if you're lucky) and illness or injury (if you're not). This happened to me after my marathon PB (during the two weeks following, I set lifetime bests in the 3K, 5K, and 10K--no kidding). I was then injured for the next six months with a variety of low-grade niggles; never matched those PB's as once my injuries were healed, life got in the way of serious training.  After my first HIM in July, more than 20 years later, same thing. Felt I was recovered, had some great workouts, then flew back to Vietnam to an endless series of injuries and illnesses.

In the overall scheme of things, yes, mileage makes one a better runner, within one's ability to tolerate it injury-free and balance it with other aspects of run and tri training. But in this situation, I think your body was just telling you it needed a break!

I don't think there is a problem discussing training plans as long as one does it in a way that assumes that everyone has different goals in performance, abilities, running stress tolerance. 

I think it was the initial title of the post: "For any who think they're not missing anything with lower mileage run training", more specifacally the  the word "anyone" that caused all the questioning comments. 

Most of us here on BT are newcomers to the sport. we can have the tendency to overtrain, over event, and get stuck with months of recovery repairing the damage.

I don't think most beginners overtrain. At <25mpw of running, you nearly by definition can't overtrain, as the volume is so low that you have ample recovery time. However, you can definitely strain muscles and tendons and even bones - this is a different matter from overtraining, and is a matter of improper increases in training volume or intensity. 

Most common beginner errors that lead to injury:

- Increasing volume too fast

- Adding speedwork before a real base is built

- Entering races way too long for their training

These errors can happen as few as <5mpw or as many as the big 80+mpw runners depending on your ability and background. 

As Scout and most other experienced runners on this site will say, running MORE miles, but in a gradual, progressive manner that increases slowly over the long haul (like 1-2 years for beginners) will reduce injury in running. It's not the volume that injures you (even at big miles like 50+mpw) - it's the errant or rushed execution that will lead to injury.

True overtraining is a separate issue altogether. That's a situation where you may have ramped up volume correctly, progressively, but never backed off for months. Most folks in this situation aren't injured - if they were, they wouldn't be able to overtrain. These folks usually have fully functional muscles, tendons, and bones, but they've sustained training increases for so long that they're actually losing performance despite the added incremental training. 

I haven't read every post and don't care to get into a dog fight.  I am a believer in higher mileage training.  Last year I trained for Lake Placid  most weeks were probablly 30 miles.  I remember when I got up to 16 mile long runs it destroyed my legs for every workout for a few days.  This year I am training for IMFL and I have several friends I am training with.  One happens to be a runner.  He very seldom hits the track but he runs lots of miles.  No set run lengths exept long run, we get in what we can when we can.  50 miles is a light week for him and he hit 70 something a couple weeks ago.

What has bringing my mileage up to the mid 40's to 50 miles a week done for me.  It has made my long runs enjoyable.  I have ran two 20 miles runs at IM goal pace 8:45 or so and been able to pick it up the last four miles to 8-8:20's with no problem.  The main thing I have seen is recovery time is not an issue for me this year.  I can recover overnight and have a jam up bike session on Tuesday, which I couldn't do last year or earlier this year when I wasn't running as much.  This AM was my last long run before IMFL.  15 miles at an easy conversational pace for me and I averaged 8:29.  I looked when I got home and my average HR was 142.  I was extacted and know it taper time and time to do IMFL.  As of right now I feel fine.

If I compared that to last year training for IMLP my long runs usually averaged 9:10-9:20 and I was hurting by the end of the run.  I have become a believer in high mileage running.  Oh I forgot to mention I am usually averaging 2 mph faster on training rides this year also and I believe it's due to faster recovery where I can have quality intervals.