The Paradox of Fitness

Runners count their stepping stones by mileage. It's nearly always been done this way. If I run 70 miles a week, that's better than running 60 miles a week. Period.

But as I get fitter, I've realized something interesting. My base runs have gotten faster, so 8 miles takes me between 46-51min on average, whereas over summer it took me 54-55.

I compared a 60 mile week from winter to a 60 mile week from summer, and the physical time I spent running during winter was about a full 50 MINUTES less than summer. On a particularly down week when I wasn't feeling great over summer, I ran nearly a min slower per mile than I do now.

Interestingly, this means that while I am running more mileage, I am actually running LESS or at the very least THE SAME amount as I was, despite my increase in mileage.

Seb Coe, on of the greatest mid distance runners of all time, stressed quality over quantity. He said even during his heaviest base he never ran more than 70 miles a week, and usually ran 55-60. Being generous, lets say his base runs were at 5:20 pace (they were probably faster). That means that an 8mile run takes him all of 43ish minutes.

Overall, Seb actually ran over an hour less than the average 4:30 miler would run, doing the same amount of miles in a week.

The phenomenon of high mileage needs to be put into perspective. While my mileage may "jump" the next time I go through my base phase, the perspective needed is not the amount of miles covered, but the TIME RAN in total.

There's really nothing else to this, but it is something to keep in mind when you hear elite athletes running 100 miles a week, because it's basically like you running 65-70. They're that much better.

Still though, if I can get to a point where 100 miles a week takes as long as, say, 85 miles used to, that would be pretty sweet.

Time is a far better measure than miles, but miles sure do make you feel more accomplished than the unforgiving clock.