I did really well with that sort of mileage for two years, and then I developed tendonitis and a stress fracture. I had periods of high mileage after that, but not year round any more.

Since I graduated, I have maxed around 60 or 65 miles per week or so. Last year I made an effort to increase my mileage (2006 weekly mileage graph); you can see I got in the 50s before my end of May marathon, took a few light weeks, and then built back up to the 50s in mid-July. That was when I started getting some pains that were probably plantar fascitis, so I went down to 20 miles per week for the next 5. This worked out well because I got married during that time and was a bit busy. I built up again but obviously didn’t have time before the NY Marathon to get into the 70s or 80s.

Increasing my mileage definately helped out my 10k times and were pretty good for my 5k times last year, and I am planning on trying to get up to 70 or 80 this summer. I’ll probably max in the 40s or 50s before Boston, take time off, and then build up with break weeks every 3 or 4 weeks. Add that to a regular weight lifting and swimming regimen (and hopefully a regular biking regimen) and I should be in pretty good shape for whichever Autumn marathon I choose.

As for the god-given talent and world class comment, I have to disagree. I have never been anything better than mediocre or slightly good at the levels that I compete at. In high school, I was good enough to be the tail end of varsity and occasionally score. In college, I would have smoked anybody from my high school team but I was in basically the same boat other than that I usually scored. Since then, I get smoked regularly by guys that are anywhere from 10 years younger to 20 or 25 years older than me. One of my teammates is 51 and has lost exactly 1 minute in his 5k time over the past 30 years. So while I am usually in the top 1-3%, I still have a long way to go to be satisfied.

It comes from being ultra-competitive; it does not bother me when an elite runner beats me, but the thought that there are faster amateur runners eats away at me. That, and I really want to beat all of my college PRs. I’ve smoked my marathon PRs; my last one I ran almost a half hour faster than I did in college and I did not get any soreness or suffering during or afterwards. I’m still about 10 seconds away from my 5k PR and 20-25 seconds away from where I want to be, and about 40 seconds away from my 10k PR. I’m right around the half marathon PR and should be able to break that in a few weeks, I think. I have not been on a track to race since college, so I don’t know where I stand in the mile (The New England Mile doesn’t count because it is an aided course w/a 70 foot drop – I am a race director this year for it though!), the 1000 or the 3000. I would like to run a sub-60 400 meter race some day; I ran a 60 point my sophomore year of high school but haven’t done any 400s for the sake of one since then. It’s always been at the tail end of a ladder workout or in a medley at the end of a meet or in the midst of 16-24 repeats of them. I have done 20x400m with the last 4 down in the 61-63 range, though.

I am very aware that this is a slightly controversial issue, but my personal experience is that higher mileage does not only make me faster, it also seems to cause less niggles injuries than lower mileage (figure that one out).

I get frustrated whenever someone insists that more than 40 mpw will get you injured. It doesn’t. If you increase your mileage sensibly, the body can take it. But of course the choice is always yours. If you run well on 40 mpw, by all means, stick to it.

Now, I’m at 70 miles a week and feeling great. ALL my runs are getting easier and more efficient. Only four months into this program and I think I’m a much better runner than I was previously. I think higher mileage works for *me*.

But there will *always* be differing opinions on this. The only way one can test is, as you’ve said, to try the “experiment of one” you’ve mentioned. Each of us has to try low mileage versus high mileage programs.

And *that* said, many runners for various reasons can’t/won’t devote that much time *or* they get injured on their way up to the mileage that is consistently posted among elite and semi-elite athletes. There is nothing wrong with this choice! It’s one we all get to make.

Want my opinion? I think it makes sense that if you want to run fast and far, you have to run fast and far. We only have to look at *fast* ultra-marathoners to figure out that the more a person does something, the less of a big deal the body thinks it is.

And what do I say to someone like Blaine who runs smokin’ times on “low” mileage? Well, a couple things:

1. He has natural, God-given talent.
2. If he could get into high mileage without getting injured, he might be world-class. No kiddin’.
Blaine: Wink-wink, nudge-nudge. Can I ask what your injury was?

That being said, I’ve run my best marathons on around 40 miles per week (maxing around 45-50). I am giving myself one more chance to get up in to the 70s or 80s and stay injury free; if it doesn’t work out for me then I’m going to try to stick to the lower mileage. The high miles definately improves my shorter races, and I like to think I’d have a break through in a marathon with some decent miles behind me. It is hard to justify though when you wind up spending a month+ on low mileage recovery.

Good luck in your ultra.