📶Weekly Mileage Increase Comparison

Compare 5, 10 and 15% a week

Enter this week mileage and a target to compare 5%, 10% and 15% weekly increases side by side, week by week, with the point each one reaches the target. No injury risk score or probability is produced.

mi
mi
mi
Point5%10%15%

The table compounds the rate you are comparing. It is arithmetic on an assumption, not a prediction, and real mileage does not rise in a straight line. The week a target is reached is decided on the same single decimal shown in the table, so the number and the conclusion always agree.

The widely repeated 10% rule has no randomised trial support. In a trial with novice runners, a 13-week graded programme built on the 10% rule produced an injury rate of 20.8% against 20.3% for a standard 8-week programme, effectively no difference. This tool therefore compares rates without claiming any of them is safer. Checked October 2026.

You Might Also Need

How much the increase rate changes the timeline

When runners raise weekly mileage, the question that actually matters is not how much to add but how long the chosen rate takes to reach the target. This calculator takes this week mileage and a target weekly mileage, puts 5%, 10% and 15% weekly increases in the same table, and reports the week each one reaches the target. Enter last week mileage as well and it also shows the increase you actually made and where that sits among the three cases.

The figures compound the rate you entered, so they are arithmetic on an assumption rather than a forecast; real mileage rarely rises in a straight line. The week a target is reached is judged on the same single decimal shown in the table, so the table and the summary never disagree. Plans that reduce mileage and schedules with built-in down weeks are not supported. Written as of October 2026.

The familiar 10% rule has no randomised trial support behind it. In a trial with novice runners, a 13-week graded programme based on the rule produced an injury rate of 20.8% while a standard 8-week programme produced 20.3%, effectively the same. This page therefore produces no injury risk score or probability and only compares the arithmetic of the three rates. Persistent pain is a reason to see a clinician before adding distance.

FAQ

Does the 10% rule prevent injuries?

In a randomised trial with novice runners, a programme built on the 10% rule produced an injury rate of 20.8% against 20.3% for a standard programme. No preventive effect was shown.

Then why compare 5, 10 and 15%?

Not to pick a safe one, but to see in numbers how much the time to a given target changes with the rate. No risk score is produced here.

Why does the table stop at 26 weeks?

At low rates a target can be dozens of weeks away and the table becomes unreadable. It stops at week 26 and the actual number of weeks is given in the results instead.