The RF Guide to running your best ever marathon

--amadeus--

Racing Flat wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that those who underperformed (at marathons recently) by large margins did so because of conditions (too hot), or illness (still had remnants of recent colds in their system/being a bit run down, or maybe ate something dodgy).

But the vast majority of people who miss their target by smaller amounts do so because they approach their training as a whole incorrectly or they don't train correctly for an individual marathon - these points might be linked.

I posted on Woddles log that doing 2 marathons a year is not the way forward. You have to improve over shorter distances and continuous marathon training doesn't always accommodate that.

I know 2 fellows who took 12 and 14 attempts to get sub 3 following numerous 3.03-3.06 runs. If you are able to do it, it should not take more than a few attempts if you ask me. The 2 fellows in question both did 2 marathons a year for years, training away independently like many on here. The breakthrough for both came about 6 months after joining a club - the difference being that they suddenly started doing their speedwork a lot harder as they were in a competitive group. With no other change, one went from 3.03 to 2.56, the other from 3.05 to 2.58. I believe that if they had done this much earlier in their career, they would have ran sub 3 years ago.

So I'd favour working on getting times down over shorter distances, more on this in Woddles log, rather than just doing marathon after marathon.

Secondly, from reading logs here, I reckon a lot of people don't train optimally for a sub 3 effort. Their easy runs are too hard and their hard runs are too easy. People post up their paces for easy runs and fellows who are a few minutes slower than me over 10k/10miles are faster than me on easy runs. But their tempo run paces are much slower - so doing the hard sessions harder and the easy sessions easier (and you'll probably only be able to do the hard sessions hard enough if the easy sessions are easy enough) might be more successful.


Avoid rubbish/junk mile territory.

This has been popping up in a few places and I think it's an excellent theory and well put forward. I know for a fact I fall into teh sub optimal training category. In fact the only thing I disagree with is his multiple marathons is bad line. Speaking personally 2 races a year is a pattern that suits and works, with proven results.

So RF, how easy / hard would you run LSRs, for example? P&D say between 10 and 20% slower than PMP, would you agree? And how do you make your easy miles really easy while avoiding junk miles?

Racing Flat

--amadeus-- wrote: »

In fact the only thing I disagree with is his multiple marathons is bad line. Speaking personally 2 races a year is a pattern that suits and works, with proven results.

If you mean by 'proven results'chipping away imrpoving a PB, maybe going 3.30, 3.20, 3.15, 3.10, 3.05, 3.03, 3.03, 3.01, 2.59, over 6 years well fair enough, you are improving, but I reckon that person should go 3.30, 3.15, 2.59 or something like that over 3-4years if they just did 1 marathon a year and trained for shorter distances in between.

shels4ever made a relevant point though, when he said if your goal is to run your best PB then you need to train for this, perhaps with my advocated approach. But if you enjoy marathons, getting as many as you can done, chalking down the big 5, all admirable goals, then you need to do more than 1 a year. But I don't think this fits in with improving your marathon times as quickly as you can. You can't have everything.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

So RF, how easy / hard would you run LSRs, for example? P&D say between 10 and 20% slower than PMP, would you agree? And how do you make your easy miles really easy while avoiding junk miles?

10-20% slower is about right, but I wouldn't tie myself into this. When I did my last marathon, aiming for sub 3 I went out on my long runs just going at my usual easy run pace. The focus was on the distance rather than the pace or time. This so happened to be about 7.50 pace at the start of the training plan, but naturally (as I got fitter) sped up to about 7.10 pace by the time the last 22mile run came around. So I was probably close enough to that 10-20% zone throughout, but essentially it was just my easy running pace, occasionally upping it for the last few miles or that. The fact that it was in the zone was more coincidence than planned.

In relation to easy runs and junk miles. Easy runs are just comfortable jogs for me. This might be around 7.10pace on road now or around 7.30 on hilly grass, but it will be slower on Wednesdays after a session Tuesday, or when I'm tired. So on easy runs I just jog away without worrying about pace, again it just so happens that afterwards my watch will say 7.30 pace or whatever.

What I mean by junk miles though is say your lactate threshold pace is 6.00 per mile and your easy pace is 7.00 per mile. Doing your easy run at 6.40 pace or your LT run at 6.20 pace might be rubbish/junk mile territory. The former is too fast, takes too much out of you, while the latter is too slow to give you a (maximal) LT benefit - so while the person is always running fairly hard, they are always running either not hard enough or not easy enough to get the most out of themselves.

So miles are good, but they need to be at the appropriate intensity to get the right benefit, rather than being stuck in no-mans-land. I think many people run in no-mans-land all the time as they want to feel like they are running reasonably hard, but at the same time they don't want to run very hard...

kennyb3

Racing Flat, when is your first book out:D be well worth a read. im only a newbie (ish) but have been thinking about some of this myself lately. i think i need to really slow down my longer runs and really put alot more into my shorter ones. im spending too many of the runs either short or long running between 80% and 90% effort and not 70% (long) and 100% (short) as shoud be.

but im no expert so really looking forward to more comments on this topic from more experienced runners:)

Stupid_Private

Good to see junk miles cleared up there - I was always curious as to what people meant by them.

I'd agree with most that's gone a head. I've only once gone on a group easy run with my club and had to drop off the back as they were going far too fast for me on what was the day after a workout. They thought I was joking when I said the pace was too fast for me when I got back to the club house a while after them.

My LSR (the S stands for Sunday) is now a fair bit faster than it used to be. After 4 months of consistant easy paced long runs of 15 miles I upped the pace to a gear above easy. My goal of a Sunday run is to run the 15 miles as hard as I can but leaving something in the tank so if I had to I could go further. I'm always holding back somewhat on them runs.

If you're looking to run a good marathon you want to get in two good workouts a week and a good long run. As RF said, the best way to do a good workout is by training with a club - it's hard to push yourself hard enough when you're out on your own. Granted the last 10 weeks of my training have had to be solo for most workouts as the club are training for other things - All winter I trained with them so I expect that to stand to me in a few weeks.

Recovering between each of them important sessions is the most important thing in my opinion.

--amadeus--

That's actually an excellent explanation of junk miles - thanks.

Again just going personally I'm getting to the point of diminishing returns but I don't think I'm at the point yet where a single peak is vital.

PB improvments have been:

2006 - 2nd mara - 23 min improvment
2006 - 3rd mara - 15 min
2006 - 4th mara - 7 mins
2007 - 5th mara - 4 mins
2007 - 6th mara - 8 mins (change of training intensity)
2008 - 7th mara - 10 mins
2008 - 8th mara - 4 mins
2009 - 9th mara - 5 mins

I'm planning (as usual :rolleyes:) to up the intensity of teh training again over the summer, build on teh strong aerobic base but add both volume and quality in teh anticipation of taking a further 5 - 10 mins off my time. My strategy (sounds a lot grander and more planned than it is) is to tackle teh marathons as a series of steps on a plateau. By commencing training again shortly after a peak effort I maintain a higher basic level of fitness and make progressive speed steps. By focussing on speed over shorter distances I would fear losing a lot of teh physiological adaptations that consistent long runs give and that would put me further back when the time came to ramp up the distance again.

Or put another way - even if you are only doing one marathon you will still run long and you will still race over shorter distances and do time trials. Occasionally after shorter races you'll need extra rest and you may taper prior.

I'm working on a three race, 18 month plan with the real peak being this autumn. All I am doing is doing my test races over teh full distance.

A final question - you strongly advocate building speed over shorter distances before going for a fast marathon. What do you think is teh key attribute of a fast marathon?

Racing Flat

The Martin Fagan Q and A session on the AI website is interesting. Although he does 130miles a week, which must be 12-14 runs or so, he only runs 3 in any way hard - the long run, which he says is hard purely because it's long, one hard tempo run and one session of 200s. just to keep in touch with speed. All other runs are easy.

shels4ever

Stupid_Private wrote: »

They thought I was joking when I said the pace was too fast for me when I got back to the club house a while after them. .

Good point i have a group that i can run with in work but the problem is the run at a pace thats never good for me, too fast for my easy runs and too slow for an LT run. made a mess out of one week training by running with them. So groups are good once they match your plans, most clubs have a lot of groups to more of an option.

Stupid_Private

Racing Flat wrote: »

The Martin Fagan Q and A session on the AI website is interesting. Although he does 130miles a week, which must be 12-14 runs or so, he only runs 3 in any way hard - the long run, which he says is hard purely because it's long, one hard tempo run and one session of 200s. just to keep in touch with speed. All other runs are easy.

Saw that alright - I liked the way he pointed out that the distance (130 miles) suits him and may not work for everyone. He feels strong running that a week, yet doesn't feel it affects the pace he puts into his key weekly sessions.

Racing Flat

Stupid_Private wrote: »

I've only once gone on a group easy run with my club and had to drop off the back as they were going far too fast for me on what was the day after a workout.

I'd say this is common to every running club in the world. You have fellows who go that little too hard on easy runs and everyone else follows suit. The same fellow is often found wanting on the hard session nights - usually with some excuse, injury or just raced or whatever. So they do their easy too hard and their hard too easy...So you've got to go at the pace that's right for you.

A very funny bit in Paula'a book was when at her first Olympics, she was on a group run. The pace naturally quickened as the run went on, which suited Paula as her event wasn't on for another while, but John Brown was in the group, and even though his race was sooner, he couldn't have it that a 'girl' would 'beat' him in training so he stayed with the pace until the end. Then after the run, he went mad, shouting at everyone that they had gone too fast and they had ruined his Olympics (he was running the 10k at the time)!!! Take a bit of control of your own training like :cool:.

TFBubendorfer

Racing Flat wrote: »

If you mean by 'proven results'chipping away imrpoving a PB, maybe going 3.30, 3.20, 3.15, 3.10, 3.05, 3.03, 3.03, 3.01, 2.59, over 6 years well fair enough, you are improving, but I reckon that person should go 3.30, 3.15, 2.59 or something like that over 3-4 years if they just did 1 marathon a year and trained for shorter distances in between.

I did 4:11, 3:28, 3:12, 3:09 and 3:05 in my last 5 marathons, while running 2 a year. I think that's pretty good progress.

I race shorter distance as well, but they are always part of my next marathon build.

Racing Flat

--amadeus-- wrote: »

PB improvments have been:

2006 - 2nd mara - 23 min improvment
2006 - 3rd mara - 15 min
2006 - 4th mara - 7 mins
2007 - 5th mara - 4 mins
2007 - 6th mara - 8 mins (change of training intensity)
2008 - 7th mara - 10 mins
2008 - 8th mara - 4 mins
2009 - 9th mara - 5 mins


A final question - you strongly advocate building speed over shorter distances before going for a fast marathon. What do you think is teh key attribute of a fast marathon?

You see, I think the marathons of 7, 4, 8, 4 and 5 mins improvement are where you're not getting enough bang for your buck. When between 4.00 and 3.05 or so any improvement less than 10minutes is not really that significant from my point of view. By that I mean, I don't like marathons and I don't like the training, so that maybe explains why I wouldn't be too happy with that amount of improvement. e.g. I was delighted with 3.15, a year later I was going for 2.59 and ran 3.06 and was disgusted with myself eevn though everyone was saying 'Wow, 9 min PB' and all that. I didn't put in 4 months of hard work and miss some good short races in the meantime for a patsy 9 minutes!

I could be wrong, or at least we might have to agree to disagree, but I imagine that if you had stopped marathons after your 15min improvement in 2006 and not done one until late 2007, you might have had a 15-20min improvement. As it stands you had a 19min improvement in 3 steps, which is much the same thing and perhaps strengthens your argument. However, with my approach, you would have had 15months or so to get your 10k, 10mile and half marathon times significantly down, and I think the faster they are, the better will be your potential at the marathon. It's probably no coincidence that the 2nd fastest 5k and 10k runner of all time is the fastest marathon runner of all time...By doing all the marathons in between, with tapers and recoveries and concentrating on long runs, your shorter distance times did not perhaps come down as much as you are capable of getting them down.


Key attribute for a fast marathon? Lactate threshold according to the physiology books I have read - best indicator of marathon performance. Saying that slogging out a 20min at tempo pace once a week isn't going to get you a good marathon if you don't do the long runs, but a mixture of long runs, speed sessions, tempo runs, marathon pace runs is needed.

Next marathon for me, (about 2020 and I'll be gooing for 2.39.59:D)

Mon 6 x 1 mile or 40min at LT pace (every 2nd week)
Tues easy 70mins
Wed 13-15miles easy
Thurs easy 70mins
Fri Rest
Sat 22 miles easy
Sun easy 70mins

The Wed one would occasionally be at marathon pace. This would be if I was unable to run twice a day.

Racing Flat

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I did 4:11, 3:28, 3:12, 3:09 and 3:05 in my last 5 marathons, while running 2 a year. I think that's pretty good progress.

I race shorter distance as well, but they are always part of my next marathon build.

As I said to amadeus, 4.11 to 3.28, excellent, 3,28 to 3.12, brilliant - in both cases, you have jumped to a new level. But with all due respect, 3.12 to 3.09 and 3.09 to 3.05 isn't all that significant if you ask me. To get to the next level from 3.12 I think you need to go sub 3. Again, this is just my personal take on times and PBs. Each to his own. Hopefully you'll get that sub 3 in London. Well within you. That fantastic base will stand to you. Believe.

kennyb3

id be very interested to hear krustys thoughts on all this as he is very much a man who likes to rack up the marathons

shels4ever

RF what are your thought of my aproach of doing one marathon as a base to improve times over the shorted distances. Once Belfast is over I've no plans for a furhter marathon unless I run the shorter times I want. At this point maybe i'll do one more to get fastish time.

--amadeus--

But RFs right - there is a difference between racking up marathons and racing marathons. I once knew someone who was intent on joining the "100 marathon club" and she'd do a couple of marathons a month but at barely above walking pace and virtually no training in between.

Now she got out of it what she wanted but I'd rather have my nads gnawed off then do a couple of 5 or 6 hour marathons a month just to tick off some arbitrary number on a chart.

FWIW I think RF has made some excellent points and I think our disagreement is more philosophical than anything else. I quite like training and I really enjoy running marathons. I know my destination and I am taking baby steps to get there. RF hates the marathons and teh training and thinks that you should get to the destination with fewer, bigger steps. i think we agree on teh route to take, it's the step size we disagree on.

Last couple of questions from me - do you think there is a minimum number of miles a sub 3 runner should be doing? What's teh ideal training volume? And a lot of people say that any healthy male under 40 should be able to do a sub 3, do you agree? (answered in another thread)

(great thread btw)

Krusty_Clown

kennyb3 wrote: »

id be very interested to hear krustys thoughts on all this as he is very much a man who likes to rack up the marathons

Nope, don't include me in this lofty company. Listen to the wise words of the fast ones. I'm new to marathoning (and running), having started a little under 12 months ago.

My plan is to run two fast marathons this year, one in each half of the year, and do two other (one completed already) at a leisurely pace.
So my planned/ideal progression will be:
3:21 October '08
3:07 Edinburgh
2:59 Berlin

Racing Flat

shels4ever wrote: »

RF what are your thought of my aproach of doing one marathon as a base to improve times over the shorted distances.

5-6 weeks after a marathon you'll run a brilliant shorter race. Over 5k or so. It might feel tough at the start as the pace isn't there (which is probably a good thing as it prevents you going off too fast) but you won't get tired, you'll speed up. Jerry Kiernan is also an advocate of this.

So running a marathon builds a great base. I ran some great times in early 2006 for a few months after Dublin 2005, and similarly after Berlin 08 I've ran PBs over shorter distances. So the marathon builds an incredible base for this, maybe no better way to do it?

But I don't think you can do too many. I think the marathon eat away at your immune system and essentially slow you down. Catherina McKiernan said people have 3 great marathons in them, you might run loads of marathons and have lost of good ones, but you'll only have 3 great ones, where you're delighted that everything went right.

I've also witnessed 2 friends, one after an ironman and one after MdS, slow down significantly and irreversibly following these ultra events. MdS went from being a 2.59 marathoner to a 10minute miler for about a year, he's possibly improving a bit again now, but something is lost from him. Ironman went from regular 3.15-3.20 marathons (done about 40) to 3.45-4 since. Age may be a factor in both cases, but I think something more systemic is in play - possibly the immune system taking too much of a hammering from which they will never or will only very slowly recover. Again, purely only observations and speculations on my part, but I don't know if all of our bodies are cut out for the longer stuff.

mrak

I 100% agree with everything racing flat posted. I've only done 2 marathons and I found the training tough so I'd only like to do one when my short race times are going well.

kennyb3

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Nope, don't include me in this lofty company. Listen to the wise words of the fast ones. I'm new to marathoning (and running), having started a little under 12 months ago.

My plan is to run two fast marathons this year, one in each half of the year, and do two other (one completed already) at a leisurely pace.
So my planned/ideal progression will be:
3:21 October '08
3:07 Edinburgh
2:59 Berlin

would any of the above put you off doing the 3 in a year?

Racing Flat

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Last couple of questions from me - do you think there is a minimum number of miles a sub 3 runner should be doing? What's teh ideal training volume?

I don't know, but I think for any decent level of running fitness (e.g. sub 40 10k), you'd want to be doing around 50miles a week. If training for a marathon, by the time you add in the long run this should rise to 60....

For my last marathon I was doing about 60 miles a week 3 out of 4 weeks, but this went over 70 on 3 occasions. If I was to do another marathon I'd want to be at around 80 I think, but that's only because my body can take it now. Takes a while, and maybe good fortune with injuries, or rather a good body to begin with, to be able to tolerate miles. Currently I am training for 1mile to 5k races and I am doing 55-60 3 weeks in 4. This might rise a tad if I do a 10k in the summer.

If I won the lottery I'd be running 100 miles a week by the end of the summer.

I'd advise someone going for a sub 3 to do 60, as long as they can take it, or are ready for it. And not sacrificing quality for quantity. But perhaps it varies across individuals.

TFBubendorfer

Racing Flat wrote: »

5-6 weeks after a marathon you'll run a brilliant shorter race. Over 5k or so. It might feel tough at the start as the pace isn't there (which is probably a good thing as it prevents you going off too fast) but you won't get tired, you'll speed up.

Wow, this is spookily accurate in my case. I ran my best 5k ever last July, about 7 weeks after the Cork marathon, and it was so much faster than anything else I had ever done I was dumbfounded.

I didn't run another 5k until last Sunday, and with my fitness reaching its peek 2 weeks before Boston I had hopes for a new PB. However, I was a good bit slower than that. If you're right, I should try and race a 5 or 10k at the end of May/beginning of June.

Something to think about.

I'll still be doing 2 marathons a year though. I love marathons, which may well explain the difference in opinion.

Racing Flat

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Wow, this is spookily accurate in my case. I ran my best 5k ever last July, about 7 weeks after the Cork marathon, and it was so much faster than anything else I had ever done I was dumbfounded.

Tis failry phenomenal. Nearly enough to make me consider running 2 marathons a year just to get my 5k time down.

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I'll still be doing 2 marathons a year though. I love marathons, which may well explain the difference in opinion.

Says it all. We've all our own goals, got to train and race to meet those, not for anybody else's reasons...

shels4ever

Racing Flat wrote: »

5-6 weeks after a marathon you'll run a brilliant shorter race. Over 5k or so. It might feel tough at the start as the pace isn't there (which is probably a good thing as it prevents you going off too fast) but you won't get tired, you'll speed up. Jerry Kiernan is also an advocate of this.

Thats great to know, actually feel i could take 7 mins of my last 5 mile race at the moment, almost though about skipping the marathon and just racing short races, as I seem to be getting what I wanted from the training. But that would with only 2 more week hard training left i'll get this out of the way then burn up the road and track later in the summer .

Enough talk of running, i'm going runnning now

Peckham

(One of the better threads we've had on this site in a while)

Difficult to disagree with a lot of what RF is saying. I'd whole heartedly agree that if chasing fast times is your objective, then you need to focus on no more than one marathon a year. The importance of ticking off shorter PBs in the meantime, I'm not sure about. Personally I feel like I'm a marathoner, and a 10k race (a distance I've never actually raced) is essentially a speed session used to replace whatever tempo running I plan to do that week.

One other thing to add in terms of junk miles (and something I'm also guilty of), is doing tempo running/other speed work too fast. There is a small window of pace (in my case it's 6:15-6:25) where tempo running gives good benefits. Not only does slower than this produce junk miles, but also faster than this. For example, I did my final mile in my tempo session last night at 5:59 - serves little purpose other than to tire the legs and jepordise sessions over the following days.

Racing Flat

shels4ever wrote: »

Thats great to know, actually feel i could take 7 mins of my last 5 mile race at the moment,

I think the 'good race 5 weeks after the marathon' only holds true if you recover correctly. i.e. no running for a week or so, only easy running for the next 2 and then really ease your way back to sessions - you'll only get one or two in before the race, but that's fine.

The opposite also holds true. I know plenty fellows who run the week after the marathon, and get back into hard sessions and races within a week or 2 of the marathon. These fellows often have a really bad patch about 3 months later that they find hard to struggle out of, so respect the recovery.

MCOS

Racing Flat wrote: »

I don't know, but I think for any decent level of running fitness (e.g. sub 40 10k), you'd want to be doing around 50miles a week. .

Is that not a lot for a 10k? Just wondering as I got sub 39 off about 25 miles per week?

A friend of mine did 3'26, 3'03', 2'53 for her first 3 marathons (DM 06, 07, 08). Now, she was a top swimmer/triathlete but I think that is still some damn impressive progress!

I asked her what the key to her progress was. She said that the key was 'consitency'. I asked about her training and she said she did 45-60 min easy runs most mornings and a long run at the weekend. After the 3'03 she focused on 'speedwork'. No specifics! It was an attitude of if you do the work you will get it. Self belief in spades!!

I also observed that she always has a relaxed attitude to running and very modest. After a st stephens day 10 miler I asker her how it went. She said it was a nice event and atmosphere was....etc... It was only a few days later did I find out she won it by about 10 minutes!!

So from my perspective, patches of inconsistency and fear of failure can cripple to most determined and well prepared sub 3 attempts.

I've always had the feeling that Abhainn has similar self belief so I would imagine he is one to watch for cracking the 3 hours

Just my 2c

Racing Flat

Peckham wrote: »

The importance of ticking off shorter PBs in the meantime, I'm not sure about. Personally I feel like I'm a marathoner, and a 10k race (a distance I've never actually raced) is essentially a speed session used to replace whatever tempo running I plan to do that week.

I suppose, the theory is, you want to be able to hold 6.52 for 3 hours. If you run 10k in 40mins your race pace is 6.24, so in relation to this, 6.52 will appear reasonably comfortable. But after 20miles of running at 6.52 pace, it might not be so comfortable and therefore unsustainable. On the other hand if you train and get your 10k time down to 37.30 which is roughly 6.00 pace I think, well then you've a much larger 'comfort zone'. 6.52 will start to seem relatively pedestrian and after 20miles at that pace, when you think 10k to go, you can comfort yourself with the fact that it's nearly a minute a mile slower than your 10k race pace if you know what I mean.

Also, if you base your speed sessions on 5k times, tempo runs on 10mile times etc., well then if you race these faster, your training paces will increase and so you will be training faster. Train faster (controllably) and you'll race faster again...

Peckham wrote: »

There is a small window of pace (in my case it's 6:15-6:25) where tempo running gives good benefits. Not only does slower than this produce junk miles, but also faster than this. For example, I did my final mile in my tempo session last night at 5:59 - serves little purpose other than to tire the legs and jepordise sessions over the following days.

Exactly. If 6.15-6.25 is your tempo pace, then 5.59 is also 'junk miles' territory or perhaps 'no mans land' is the better description. Too fast for a LT benefit. And too slow for a speed benefit.

The question is, is 6.15-6.25 your correct tempo pace? If it's based on a fitness test, or your 10mile-half marathon race pace, then fair enough. If it's based on just how you feel, I'd imagine it may be either too slow or too fast, depending on whether you are more of the 'lazy' or 'competitive' type trainer.

Racing Flat

MCOS wrote: »

Is that not a lot for a 10k? Just wondering as I got sub 39 off about 25 miles per week?

In that case, get up to 50miles a week and you'll get close to 35mins. Fact.

It's all relative. 50miles a week is probably not even half enough for Bekele when he's training for a 10k. But he runs 26 minutes...

nerraw1111

Just to add my two cents in relation to this. My pops ran a 2 40 marathon and quite a few sub 3 hours. He’s a constant advocate for one marathon a year with a focus on shorter races, incl cross country races in order to run faster marathons. He’s of the opinion that you don’t run faster marathons by solely running marathons. Change it up, keep it fun etc. He’s off the old-school generation tho, no heart monitors or energy gels.

--amadeus--

Racing Flat wrote: »

In that case, get up to 50miles a week and you'll get close to 35mins. Fact.

It's all relative. 50miles a week is probably not even half enough for Bekele when he's training for a 10k. But he runs 26 minutes...

I've been telling him he's too soft on his running targets too...

Stupid_Private

Racing Flat wrote: »

I didn't put in 4 months of hard work and miss some good short races....

I don't really see the need to miss any races in the build up - afterwards, yes with recovery etc but beforehand you can still get a fair whack of races in. I just had a look at my training log for last year when I didn't run any marathons and I got in 6 races between January and beginning of May - 2 cross country 5 milers, a 5k (first ever), a 5 mile (pb),a 10k (pb) and first ever 5000m. This year in the same time period I'll have raced 7 times, including a marathon. 5k (pb), cross country 10k, 10k, 10 mile (pb), half marathon (pb)... 10k and marathon to come.

I don't think I've really missed any races in the build up (although my club may disagree!). Personally I'd go nuts if I didn't get a race in every 3 or 4 weeks. There's no way I could concentrate for 12 months with only one focus. If you're training hard you want to see returns and having to wait 6 months or a year to see the return in a marathon is far too long.

Stupid_Private

nerraw1111 wrote: »

Just to add my two cents in relation to this. My pops ran a 2 40 marathon and quite a few sub 3 hours. He’s a constant advocate for one marathon a year with a focus on shorter races, incl cross country races in order to run faster marathons. He’s of the opinion that you don’t run faster marathons by solely running marathons. Change it up, keep it fun etc. He’s off the old-school generation tho, no heart monitors or energy gels.

Your pops has it bang on. If energy gels were around then he could've gone even faster. I'd fully endorse his no heart rate monitor and all...

ss43

MCOS wrote: »

Is that not a lot for a 10k? Just wondering as I got sub 39 off about 25 miles per week?

50 miles a week is not a lot for 1500 up. I would consider it very little for 5k up.

Running Bing

Racing Flat wrote: »

In that case, get up to 50miles a week and you'll get close to 35mins. Fact.

It's all relative. 50miles a week is probably not even half enough for Bekele when he's training for a 10k. But he runs 26 minutes...

Do you think quantity of mileage makes such a big difference for runners at a lower level?


I was pondering whether to up my mileage from 34 mpw to 40 mpw. I think I could manage that but I wouldnt want to do any more. Do you think there would be much benefit in me doing that (as its only 6 miles).

--amadeus--

ss43 wrote: »

50 miles a week is not a lot for 1500 up. I would consider it very little for 5k up.

It's all about context, available time, target times and goals, ability...

Lots of people have run marathons off 20 - 30 miles a week and plenty more do 10ks off a couple of runs and maybe peaking at 10 miles a week. If you want to reach your absolute best performance then higher mileage is needed but to run, race, improve and enjoy yourself I would hate to think that a line of x miles a week would get drawn and very few on here would be doing 50 miles a week even if they were training for the marathon, never mind a 5 or 10k, IMO.

--amadeus--

Babybing wrote: »

I was pondering whether to up my mileage from 34 mpw to 40 mpw. I think I could manage that but I wouldnt want to do any more. Do you think there would be much benefit in me doing that (as its only 6 miles).

I can't speak for RF but going from 34 to 40 is around a 15% increase so you'd def see some gains.

mrak

Babybing wrote: »

Do you think quantity of mileage makes such a big difference for runners at a lower level?

I was pondering whether to up my mileage from 34 mpw to 40 mpw. I think I could manage that but I wouldnt want to do any more. Do you think there would be much benefit in me doing that (as its only 6 miles).

It would make a big difference - that's nearly 18% more running.

MCOS

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I've been telling him he's too soft on his running targets too...

Yep you did. I'll be sure to consider this when setting my 2010 goals :P

Racing Flat wrote: »

In that case, get up to 50miles a week and you'll get close to 35mins. Fact.

It's all relative. 50miles a week is probably not even half enough for Bekele when he's training for a 10k. But he runs 26 minutes...

Cool was just checking, 50 miles a week would be new territory for me by a long shot, more than doubling my mileage.

kennyb3

this is the best thread in ages and has given me alot to think about. more miles, more miles and more miles for me. im only doing about 15 to 20 (the odd 25 to 30 when i ve less football) per week and doing some longer runs too fast. this has thought me alot. thanks Racing Flat, stupid private, amadeus etc

Krusty_Clown

kennyb3 wrote: »

would any of the above put you off doing the 3 in a year?

Nope. Like TFBubendorfer, I do it because I love it. I wouldn't have the patience or discipline to train and wait for a year for a marathon. And in my case, there's no point in denying myself the experience when I enjoy them that much. I will never be a 2:55 marathon runner, and sub-3 may possibly elude me, but I'm well motivated to keep trying. Even if I never make it, I will have enjoyed the journey anyway. My pleasure comes from the 26.2 miles, not from the final 385 yards.

You do what you enjoy. For some of us that means running 1 marathon a year and concentrating on shorter distances in between. For me, my enjoyment (I hope) will come from racing two marathons a year (with a decent break between them), and then doing another one or two at a leisurely pace for the enjoyment, and a variety of races in-between. Life is too short, I want to go run in each of the majors and share in that atmosphere. If I can do that and record a PB, double-super-extra-bonus time.

Racing Flat

Stupid_Private wrote: »

I don't really see the need to miss any races in the build up

I mean 1miles, 1500s and 800s. These wouldn't really fit into the marathon training, and if I tried one in the mioddle of marathon training, the lack of specific speed work would probably hamper me.

Stupid_Private wrote: »

Personally I'd go nuts if I didn't get a race in every 3 or 4 weeks.

Totally agree, and I'll still do this in marathon training, but would be dooing 5k+ races mainly.

But when not marathon training I'll often run a race a fortnight in race season. Can get away with this when training for shorter stuff. But when marathon training these midweek races do not work as you can't afford an easy day before and a recovery day after every second week.

So I definitely think I missed out on shorter races (and training) when doing marathons.

Stupid_Private wrote: »

I don't think I've really missed any races in the build up (although my club may disagree!).

Exactly!

Babybing wrote: »

Do you think quantity of mileage makes such a big difference for runners at a lower level?


I was pondering whether to up my mileage from 34 mpw to 40 mpw. I think I could manage that but I wouldnt want to do any more. Do you think there would be much benefit in me doing that (as its only 6 miles).

Yes, runners at all levels. You should be gradually upping your mileage until you are anywhere between 60 and 100 in the winter/base training I'd say if you want to get the most out of yourself. Come the spring/summer then, as quality increases, and you start racing, you might drop down to 40-50miles a week, but the quality would be quite a bit higher so it might feel just as hard as your 60-100 in the winter.

Upping the mileage needs to be done slowly though, and at the right time (of year, not appropriate in race season) and maybe in a 2 steps forward, 1 step back fashion.

You might go 34, 37, 37, 25, 40, 37, 40, 25, 42, 40, 44, 30, 44, 48, 46, 30, 50, 48, 50, 35, 50, 50, 50, 35 type of thing. So you take about 6 months to go from regularly running 34 a week, to regularly running 50 a week.

cfitz

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I can't speak for RF but going from 34 to 40 is around a 15% increase so you'd def see some gains.

mrak wrote: »

It would make a big difference - that's nearly 18% more running.

I don't think Babybing's 34 miles are plucked out of thin air, (I think he's following a Jack Daniels Running Formula programme), so it may not be as simple as add on more miles and you'll run faster. Somewhere else, I think it was Woddle who said it: "If Jack Daniels says do 34, then do 34" - I'd be inclined to agree. If it was someone who wasn't working from a strict program, I would look at 34 as being quite low, but unless he's going to rethink the whole schedule, I think it might be a better idea to stick with the plan. Maybe up the mileage after the track season. Hard to know I suppose...

Running Bing

cfitz wrote: »

I don't think Babybing's 34 miles are plucked out of thin air, (I think he's following a Jack Daniels Running Formula programme), so it may not be as simple as add on more miles and you'll run faster. Somewhere else, I think it was Woddle who said it: "If Jack Daniels says do 34, then do 34" - I'd be inclined to agree. If it was someone who wasn't working from a strict program, I would look at 34 as being quite low, but unless he's going to rethink the whole schedule, I think it might be a better idea to stick with the plan. Maybe up the mileage after the track season. Hard to know I suppose...

Daniels doesnt actually prescribe the 34 miles though Cfitz.

He basically just says increase mileage every three weeks (by the amount of sessions your doing a week, so 6 sessions=6 miles) until your at a comfortable level.

So I have basically built up to 34 mpw over the last couple of months following this advice but Im now at the stage where I can stay where I am or up it.

I have the time to be running 40 mpw and Im pretty sure I could handle it but I was just wondering what sort of a benefit it would give.

Still not sure what to do as in four weeks time the intensity increases in the programme.


Im thinking what I might do is up it to 40 and try it for the next four weeks (where the intensity is nothing major) and then I can drop back if I need to when I get into the tougher stuff.

Sorry just realised I have completely hijacked what was a very good thread:o

asimonov

Thanks to all the above posters; That's a brilliant thread. Great information presented in a clear and understandable way by RF and then feedback and opinion from all sides - from those who have a single minded focus on achieving a number to those who do marathons because they love them.

SUNGOD

asimonov wrote: »

Thanks to all the above posters; That's a brilliant thread. Great information presented in a clear and understandable way by RF and then feedback and opinion from all sides - from those who have a single minded focus on achieving a number to those who do marathons because they love them.

+1, really great thread and makes a awful lot of sense
really given me something to think about and how i plan on approach a sub 3 attempt in berlin this septenber

ss43

Racing Flat wrote: »

Next marathon for me, (about 2020 and I'll be gooing for 2.39.59:D)

Mon 6 x 1 mile or 40min at LT pace (every 2nd week)
Tues easy 70mins
Wed 13-15miles easy
Thurs easy 70mins
Fri Rest
Sat 22 miles easy
Sun easy 70mins

The Wed one would occasionally be at marathon pace. This would be if I was unable to run twice a day.

Looking at that schedule, I wonder is there something missing. I might have asked this on this forum before but don't think I got a satisfactory answer (or else I've forgotten).

Is the tough part of a marathon not running hard when you've used up all your glycogen? If that is the case should there not be training for this part of the race - there's sessions there that would use up the glycogen stores but none involve any subsequent hard running. This seems to be a common theme among people who post training here.

With the exception of the 22mile run that's just like base training for 5/10k which explains a good performance at such distances a few weeks later. They'd be better again if instead of racing the marathon and spending time recovering you trained fast for an extra 2/3 weeks.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

It's all about context, available time, target times and goals, ability...

Lots of people have run marathons off 20 - 30 miles a week and plenty more do 10ks off a couple of runs and maybe peaking at 10 miles a week. If you want to reach your absolute best performance then higher mileage is needed but to run, race, improve and enjoy yourself I would hate to think that a line of x miles a week would get drawn and very few on here would be doing 50 miles a week even if they were training for the marathon, never mind a 5 or 10k, IMO.

Agreed but within the context of running 5Ks 50 miles is low mileage. If it's all you can do then do it, that's grand but it's still low mileage for training to race 5k. I'm not suggesting people don't bother if they can't get to a certain level of training or performance.

Stupid_Private

ss43 wrote: »

With the exception of the 22mile run that's just like base training for 5/10k which explains a good performance at such distances a few weeks later. They'd be better again if instead of racing the marathon and spending time recovering you trained fast for an extra 2/3 weeks.

That's all marathon training is - nothing magically different to regular training. I read an interview with Paula Radcliffe before where she says that her marathon training only sees an increase in 10-15 miles a week. I've jumped from averaging 55 miles a week last year to around 65-70 miles for the marathon. This increase is only for around 6-10 weeks and you certainly feel it. The structure of the training is very similar to what I'm used to, just a couple of cheeky miles tacked on here and there.

mithril

I have read quite a bit that endorses what Racing Flat is saying - 2 marathons a year max and only one is better.

I am not entirely sure why, though

Is it that the muscle damage during a marathon is so great that it takes a long period to repair?
Personally it seems to take me a month to fully recover so this does not seem right.

Or that a very long build up is required for optimal training for a marathon. The most common training period is 18 weeks and the longest I have seen is 24 weeks? If this was the case an even longer build-up would appear to be optimal?

ss43

Stupid_Private wrote: »

That's all marathon training is - nothing magically different to regular training. I read an interview with Paula Radcliffe before where she says that her marathon training only sees an increase in 10-15 miles a week. I've jumped from averaging 55 miles a week last year to around 65-70 miles for the marathon. This increase is only for around 6-10 weeks and you certainly feel it. The structure of the training is very similar to what I'm used to, just a couple of cheeky miles tacked on here and there.

Surely there should be something different. The challenge is different. From 100m up to half-marathon (if you're pretty fast) you don't have to deal with using up your glycogen which means what you need to train the body for is different. TO use an engine analogy I've heard - in the shorter distance it's about getting as much power out of the engine while for the marathon it's about getting your fuel to last as long as possible.

Racing Flat

ss43 wrote: »

Surely there should be something different. The challenge is different. From 100m up to half-marathon (if you're pretty fast) you don't have to deal with using up your glycogen which means what you need to train the body for is different. TO use an engine analogy I've heard - in the shorter distance it's about getting as much power out of the engine while for the marathon it's about getting your fuel to last as long as possible.

Theoretically then, training when glycogen is used up might be a good idea. However, to do this you'd have to run above 20-22 miles or so. But doing this is by and large believed to be counterproductive, as it takes so much out of you and causes bone, cartilage and muscle damage above thhose distances, that it cannot be done too often. People used to do 30mile runs when training for marathons not long ago, but this has been largely discounted now by the vast majority as far as I'm aware.

Other things that have been in vogue are training when glycogen depleted - i.e. not eating and then training, but again this has been shown to be counterproductive, leads to problems with the immune system, I think tunney has the references for this.

Training for 5k-half marathon won't be all that different and training for the marathon will only change by stretching the long run out to 22 miles and maybe adding a mile or 2 to usual easy runs and maybe doing longer intervals, or more of them a little slower, so all in all the plans won't be too different, and the mileage may not go up an awful lot.

aburke

Racing Flat wrote: »

but I reckon that person should go 3.30, 3.15, 2.59 or something like that over 3-4years if they just did 1 marathon a year and trained for shorter distances in between.

Do you know me? :-)
DCM 2005: 3:33
DCM 2006: 3:13
DCM 2007: 2:58

2005 10km pb ~ 39:45
2006 10km pb ~ 38:10
2007 10km pb ~ 36:03

I had a bad hipflexor injury that has kept me out for the last half of 2008 and until now... but I'm hoping to continue that improvement in 2009!