Run less, run faster??

Yes, Run less, run faster is the title. Sorry!!  I'm not sure who the author is.

There are no such thing as junk miles, that's a load of crap.

Sure, some people use it (think F.I.R.S.T. system), but the reality is that no pure runner that is competitive would even consider it.  Simply not enough volume, too much high intensity, and not enough frequency.  For someone looking for the "easy out" to think they are getting faster??  Sure, perhaps.  But not someone who wants to be competitive.

Personally not a fan at all ........

I'd take issue with that.  Working out when sick, injured or too tired, etc. is only likely to lead to more sicknes or exhaustion. Just because you have a 10 miler on the schedule and you were up all night working or taking care of a sick kid doesn't mean doing the wrkout will be helpful.  In fact, it is likely to be harmful and qualify as "junk miles".... personal example: last month I pushed the last 3 miles of a 12 mile run and ended up was a damn sore achilles which shut me down for 3 days.  If I had stopped at mile 9, when I felt fine, it would have been better, but I wanted to make my goal for the week. 

I strongly agree with the no-junk miles approach to running.

I am an excellent example of how hi-intensity low mileage versus low intensity big mileage works out. 

 I was a subaverage but hardworking non-scoring HS x-country team member, running the 5k in 20:30PR during my senior year. I ran about 30 miles per week, and did speedwork 2x/wk with the team. On many (most?) runs, I tried to kill myself with intensity, running as fast as I could. I kept up a similar (slightly less) intense regimen of 30-35mpw for 10 more years after that, and my 5k PR dropped to 20:05 over that decade. I assumed that was my "genetic limit" since every book seems to say that VO2 is genetically determined and peaks after 6 weeks (I agree).

However, I grossly underestimated the ability of pure aerobic (nonVO2) ability to add to ability. I dropped 5k racing for a year at age 31 thinking there was no possible way to improve, and took up marathon training, thinking my 5k time would not improve (possibly worsen). Mileage went from 35 to 55 then to 70 over the next 1.5 years, mostly run at slow easy paces, and 1 hard tempo or sprint session per week. Lots and lots of what would be called "junk miles" if you consider conversational easy pace junk miles.

My 5k PR dropped from 20:05 to 18:20 in 1.5 years on the hi-mileage program, and this was with NO dedicated 5k training. My race finishes went from upper 30% to upper 2%, and I became a regular AG contender for the first time in my life.

This experience was eye-opening, and I suspect a similar approach would work for swimming and cycling. Note as well that this approach for running is also used by elites - I followed Pfitzinger's Advanced Marathoning program.

Bottom line - as long as you are not running to the point where you're injuring yourself, you will be improving your aerobic base with more miles. You CANNOT substitute hi-intensity work for these big miles as well - it is a different physiology. So give up hopes of running 30 miles at super-hi intensity to get the same effect as running 70 slow ones (with 5-6 fast ones thrown in.)

PS - The FIRST method of low-mileage does work for some people to run great marathons. These folks are usually experienced runners with light body frames and good genetic ability. A very common question on running boards asked by 80+% of people who do FIRST is something along the lines of "I run a 20:00 5k, so why is my marathon nearly 5 hours after doing the FIRST program?" Getting better at running requires more running. I interestingly would still recommend FIRST for those who really want to run only 3 days/wk yet still would like to finish a marathon. I would not recommend it for those shooting for a PR (or BQ).

Well, there are several issues floating around here:

1.  Are there 'junk miles'?  Not really, if the term means something like 'not particularly long or particularly intense runs', which is how it is often used.  There are runs that were less than optimal for you at that time because the pace or distance or structure was somehow wrong, for you, at that particular time.  That doesn't make runs of that type 'junk', but only 'poorly chosen at that time'.  Moreover, logging lots of 'vanilla' miles is a proven recipe for success.

2.  Can you finish a marathon on 3 runs a week?  Sure.

3.  Is running 3x a week the best way to get fast? I'm not going to venture a blanket statement here, but I will venture to say that the person for whom 3x/week is the best way to get fast is at best extremely rare, and probably has some very unusual issue that makes this the best way to train.

4.  Can you substitute 'junk miles' with cross-training and get the same benefit?  Not at all.  You can get some of the benefits.  Your heart gets a workout, for example.  But even some cardio-vascular benefits (such as increased density of capillaries in the the muscules that are used for running) are achievable best by running.  And many other benefits are completely absent when you cross-train, for example, increased strength in the soft non-muscular tissues.  In fact, if you think that a hour on the elliptical can be substituted for running an hour (or even 30 minutes) then you are setting yourself up for injury, if you then train your running as if you had done the run instead of the cross-training.  What worries me about these programs is that they seem to operate on that assumption.

5.  Will running 3x/week relatively long and/or intensely lead to injury?  Not necessarily, but I think that you are increasing the probability of injury by training that way.

Just my 5c (a penny per thought...).

Really?  Why wouldn't you share your training methods with us?  Just curious....

Sorry- DP

This is my 2nd time around using the First to Finish Marathon Training Plan.  I love it and don't have any complaints.  And for some reason, it's worked really well for me.  I personally don't think that a lot of volume works for everyone.  It hasn't worked for me so that's why I decided this year to change things up.

Last year I ran 1,435 miles and didn't notice a huge difference in my running.  I ran alot- that's all I did, and I didn't shave a lot of time off from my spring to fall marathon- in fact, my fall marathon was only a few secs faster than my spring marathon.  Since I saw little improvements with my running I decided to try something different and focus not so much on volume, but the quality of my runs. 

I have gotten substainally faster this year and feel so much stronger with my running it's amazing.  In the past I've followed HR based plans that had me running 5-6 times a week.  I did ok on those plans, but didn't get a lot faster.  I have seen really good results when switching to the First to Finish Plan.  I wouldn't recommend it for beginners, but if you have a solid running base and are looking for something different, I highly recommend it.

I did however tweek the plan a little bit the 2nd time around, upping my long run distances to over 20.  I know most running literature does not recommend this, but I've followed text books all along and no matter what I do it doesn't seem to make a difference.  So I'm giving this approach a shot.  I'll know in a few weeks after running Houston if it was wise or not.  I have a solid running base, and I'm about to top that this year so I'm not too worried about injuries and taking too long to recover since I do havea solid base.

Like I've said before, the plan has worked for me and everyone responds differently to plans.  This is my favorite plan and I would use it again for any future marathons.  Try it and see if it works for you.  It may or may not, but you won't know unless you try it.

**One point to add:  if you follow this plan it's really important to cross train.  Since you are running less per week you need to supplement your running with cross training.  Running less isn't necessarily the easy way out if you add to the plan with biking.  And I've incorporated weights in twice a week and the biking and weights have really helped with increasing my leg strength.  And I did make sure to get in long runs over summer time (I think I went up 16 miles) to make sure that my long run base was somewhat decent going into the plan.  

p.s.  I do believe in junk miles    And that weight training can be beneficial to running

I have the book and have read it.  What's interesting is that my husband used a Pfitziner plan for the same time I was using FIRST to FINISH for the same marathon.  Interestingly enough, he shaved off the same amount of time from his previous marathon time (using the 55 miles/week plan) as I did running 3x a week on the FIRST plan 

BTW- the FIRST plan does have intense speedwork once a week and a tempo run.  So I am getting in some awesome workouts to get faster.

I used to believe that running specificity was pretty much everything and that junk miles were better than cross training.  A little over a year ago I ran a marathon PR off of a high mileage program where I hit over 100 miles 6 weeks straight (I have always felt less talented than many so have often overcompensated through effort so my PR isn't much considering how much I trained).  Not all of that mileage was "junk" either.  I think I slightly underperformed in that marathon for a number of reasons.  This fall, off of tri training, I ran a half marathon PR on a somewhat hilly course with an average mileage of 35 miles per week for the preceding six weeks prior to taper, but most runs had some quality in them.  By McMillan's calculator, the race off of 100mpw was equivalent to the one off of 35 mpw!  I have revised my thinking about the best way for me to train for running and the use of my time.

I think there are no absolutes, whatever enables you to get to the starting line the fittest without injury is the best method.