Quote Originally Posted by christopher leigh View Post
Lydiard did say something to that effect, but he was wrong. The slower miles that athletes do have no effect on aerobic condition. If you were correct in your assertion then ultra-distance runners I.e. those who shuffle round the Bob Graham, would have the highest V02 maxes in the world.

The only affect of benefit with the 'more is better' philosophy is a loss of body fat. This may in the short term result in greater average speed due to a lighter frame, but it'll also lead to a host of long term problems like anxiety and chronic fatigue syndrome.

Those who run a lot to rid their bodies of excessive fat would do far better to run less but faster, and go on a diet. That way they wouldn't drain their bodies of vital reserves.
Can see and have experienced the logic in that, apart from the association with long term anxiety. Sacrificing mileage for an increase in quality and training affect is clearly the way to get fitter and faster - it's hard to argue with that.

However, there are periods when I am not training for any races or rounds or anything in particular when I up the mileage but reduce the hard quality session for the simple reason that i like running and prefer longer runs. If anything i'm more anxious when i don't do this. This takes the more physically stressful elements out and it's lovely, pressure and goal free running. This could be adjudged to be my indulging in junk miles and whilst my speed does drop off a little, i don't find i get more anxious.

What's the theory/evidence behind it? I'd be interested to know