Boardsies marathon plan by debate

Woddle

I'm sure we all like designing our own schedules but how about we design one here on the ART forum with a 2:45-3:30 in mind through debate and experience.
Could be perfect timing for some guinea pigs with DM only round the corner
The collective decides.

We could do it one question at a time.
First question how many weeks of specific marathon training is needed?

All answers should be backed up with reasoning.


This could bomb but hopefully not

ecoli

This could go one of two ways but hopefully it works right as it could be a great template for the forum to have which could be a source of reference for users (As opposed to the generic HH cant stand that plan:p)

First question how many weeks of specific marathon training is needed?

The longer the better in my experience. This gives the body time to adapt sufficiently to the increase in mileage week by week. I would say 24 weeks is a good plan. Many of the sub 3 guys try to do 10k plans before this and go straight from this into their marathon plan.

So perhaps 10 weeks 10k training building the mileage followed by 14 weeks marathon specific

This is the general template I used recently for one of my athletes which had some great success

Krusty_Clown

I reckon 6-8 weeks of 10k training, followed by 12 weeks of marathon training. So ideally, 20 Weeks in total.

The 10k builds up leg speed, and gets a runner into a regular training regime. The runner will also benefit from upping their mileage to the starting point of the marathon program, and will also prepare them for the demands of PMP sessions, 5k intervals, and tempo runs at 10 mile pace. Finally, the 10k race at the end of this cycle, provides a guideline as to where the runner's current fitness lies, and a loose goal as to what time the runner could potentially aim for in the marathon (which they update upwards or downwards as they make progress).

The 12 week marathon program ensures that the runner doesn't become bored, or suffer from shifting goal syndrome. Marathon program should incorporate some interim races.

*Edit*: Oops.. Carbon copy of ecoli's post. Great minds and all that..

macinalli

Am liking these replies! Have been focussing on shorter distances so far this year, training well and looking forward to the Dunshaughlin 10k at the end of the month. After that it's a 14 week programme til the Liverpool marathon in early October:)

Oisin11178

Yeah alot of sense in the first 2 posts. i spent my last last marathon training cycle cherry picking the good sessions from p and d and daniels. I was training for a couple of ultras at the same time so was doing 2 long runs a week also. i find the tough daniels sessions great, if you can get through them they are a great moral booster.
Im doing liverpool also bud, looks like its going to be a good one:D

TFBubendorfer

2:45 - 3:30 is a massive spread.

Once you get into sub-3 territory, a generic training plan becomes less and less useful.

Not sure if this is relevant here, but since I've been asked often enough by now I am currently in the process of putting the training I did for Vienna into some readable form. It's a fair amount of work though and I won't make any promises on delivery.

But I am making this very clear, while this is a training plan that worked exceedingly well for me it may not work as well for anyone else. I had a coach advising me, chopping and changing the plan as we got along and that's something you just cannot replicate solely with a written schedule, no matter how good.

TheTubes

I read the title and thought someone was proposing to organise a marathon for boardsies

TFBubendorfer

TheTubes wrote: »

I read the title and thought someone was proposing to organise a marathon for boardsies

As a matter of fact, so did I

ecoli

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

But I am making this very clear, while this is a training plan that worked exceedingly well for me it may not work as well for anyone else. I had a coach advising me, chopping and changing the plan as we got along and that's something you just cannot replicate solely with a written schedule, no matter how good.

I completely agree with this. Training should be subject to how the athlete is feeling week by week and should be tweaked in accordance to that. I firmly believe this is the best way to develop regardless of what level you are at. Having said that i dont see why an alternative template can be established for people to tinker with to personalize it as long as it is built on solid principles.
Training plans are designed by their very nature to get someone to get as many people to the finish line healthy in their target time, not to get the best out of a person.
Regardless of any training plan I have seen there are always parts which I dont agree with or am very dubious no matter how well recommended they come (Daniels, P&D and HH all come to mind here)

Woddle

Right so we have agreed that you need 20-24 weeks.
The first 8-10 weeks is based around 10k training.

Next question
How many days a week?
What kind of mileage would one be looking to hit?

ecoli

Woddle wrote: »

Next question
How many days a week?

My advice would be 5-6 days a week. The more days you can spread your mileage over the less injury risk you are putting your body into. Progression of training is about increase of volume through both duration and frequency. 7th day should be optional as a recovery day either recovery miles/cross training or off

Woddle wrote: »

What kind of mileage would one be looking to hit?

IMO person should look to be hitting atleast 30-40 a week coming into the plan with the 10k plan building to 50+ and marathon specific topping out around 60-70.Mileage shouldnt change too much between the 10k and marathon plans but rather just the emphasis of sessions etc. I feel you need to be hitting atleast 50+ to train for a marathon safetly anything less and your asking for trouble

Clearlier

I wrote this and then realised that most of my thinking was aimed more towards a 2:30 level than the 2:45 - 3:30 that was asked for so I've added specific comments for both of these paces.


How many weeks of specific marathon training?
In respect of how many weeks specific marathon training I think that the ideal is more like 8 - 10. What is done prior to that depends completely on the runner. Somebody who is relatively new to running should be base building and building up their mileage to a level that they sustain through the specific training period. They should be doing that for as long as is available to them. Somebody who has been there, done that and got the t-shirt and normally runs 70+mpw can come off a track season and move into specific marathon training after a couple of weeks of easy running.
2:45 - 12 weeks should be enough. Most people aiming for this will have a decent running background. If they don't the time before will have to be spent base building
3:30 - Most people aiming for this kind of time should run a marathon off base building only. They simply won't get much out of doing VO2 max work or complex long runs mixing up lots of different paces (too tiring). A basic plan of a long run with MP sections every 2 -3 weeks, a medium long run and a tempo per week backed up with some easy and recovery running will see most at this level improve continuously.

How many days to run?
Every day but distinguish between recovery runs and easy runs where recovery runs are at whatever pace you like and have as their main purpose recovery from a hard training run or race. Easy running should be a little harder. In the base period double whenever you can. In the marathon specific training period you should really be hitting 70-80mpw before you double. That said if you only have time to do short runs then two is better than one however you should always have a long run and a medium long run each week.
2:45 - 6 days, ideally 7
3:30 - again the more the better, an absolute minimum of 3 with cross training or 4 moving to 5 without.

How many MPW?
As many as you can manage. Unless you have a lengthy background in running or you have previously done very high miles you can't run a marathon all out without doing relatively high mileage. The time for building your mileage is when you are base building. The marathon specific period should maintain the level of mileage or perhaps even (very) modestly reduce it whilst upping the intensity of some runs.
2:45 - Running background is hugely influential here. If you have only been running for a year or two you probably need to be heading towards 70. If you have lots of experience and have run this kind of time before you can do it off as little as 30mpw.
3:30 - MPW should show a steady increase throughout training right up to the taper. I know newcomers who have done this off 30mpw and others who needed 50mpw. Talent has a bigger influence here than at 2:45 or faster where hard work plays a bigger role.

TheTubes

TheTubes wrote: »

I read the title and thought someone was proposing to organise a marathon for boardsies

At the risk of quoting myself and sounding crazy, I think its a great idea. Just sayin...

TFBubendorfer

TheTubes wrote: »

At the risk of quoting myself and sounding crazy, I think its a great idea. Just sayin...

1) That's off topic
2) That's already been done. Sixmilebridge last year.

TFBubendorfer

Clearlier wrote: »

3:30 - MPW should show a steady increase throughout training right up to the taper. I know newcomers who have done this off 30mpw and others who needed 50mpw. Talent has a bigger influence here than at 2:45 or faster where hard work plays a bigger role.

Talent is more important for 3:30 than for 2:45?
I know one particularly untalented runner who by sheer hard work managed to get to 2:59. He had no problem getting to 3:30 years before that.

Clearlier

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Talent is more important for 3:30 than for 2:45?
I know one particularly untalented runner who by sheer hard work managed to get to 2:59. He had no problem getting to 3:30 years before that.

Not more important, more influential (in terms of the amount of training required to get to that level). Some talented runners can get to 3:30 with relatively little training. Other less talented runners need to work hard to get to 3:30. However when it comes to running 2:45 a certain amount of work is required from everybody no matter how talented they are. Obviously a very talented runner requires less training than somebody without talent however the gap in work required to get 2:45 is smaller than to get 3:30.

robinph

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Talent is more important for 3:30 than for 2:45?
I know one particularly untalented runner who by sheer hard work managed to get to 2:59. He had no problem getting to 3:30 years before that.

I know of one particularly lazy runner who by sheer luck managed to get 2:58 and had no problem doing 3:30's before that with just as much laziness involved.

I think I got the point that Clearier is trying for, although not sure I could put it much better. Someone with a touch of natural talent could hit a 3:30 obviously easier than someone without but who is putting in the work. Talented or not though, you need to put in the miles to move up much from the early sub3's.

woodchopper

Clearlier wrote: »

Not more important, more influential (in terms of the amount of training required to get to that level). Some talented runners can get to 3:30 with relatively little training. Other less talented runners need to work hard to get to 3:30. However when it comes to running 2:45 a certain amount of work is required from everybody no matter how talented they are. Obviously a very talented runner requires less training than somebody without talent however the gap in work required to get 2:45 is smaller than to get 3:30.

Any chance you would put your sub 2.30 plan up if you have the time. Your posts are very informative just like Tergat

Thanks
Woodchopper

Clearlier

Robinph,

You've got it although I have found it surprisingly difficult to articulate.

Woodchopper,

I'm glad that you like my posts. The original purpose of my saying that what I had posted was more like a 2:30 plan was because when I re-read what I had written I realised that I had over-egged what was needed even for a 2:45 (e.g. doubles are helpful but not necessary). I'm afraid that I simply don't know enough about running at that pace to write a plan.

If someone were to start a thread on it I'd do more reading than writing especially as I believe that at least one person (and possible more?) has posted here who has already hit that level. I have some ideas for sure but I only know the training reasonably well of one guy who has gone under 2:20 twice and of one other guy who has come close to 2:30 twice whereas I've had insight into the training of dozens of people at sub-3.

In any case this is Woddle's thread and I'm looking forward to the next question

Woddle

How many weeks?
18/20 weeks
The first 8/10 weeks around a 10km program and then into marathon specific for the next 10 weeks

How many days to run?
6
but be sure to distinguish between easy, recovery and hard runs

What mileage per week?
70
remember these answers are based with a 2'45 to 3'30 in mind but probably leaning more towards the former.

Thanks so far to ecoli and clearlier for some very informative posts.

Next question
Long runs:
How many? what would be your max long run? how hard should you run these? are there any other long run type sessions you would recommend?

Krusty_Clown

Well, this is where I think the 2:45 to 3:30 training gap really widens.

For a 3:30 plan, I think you can get away with running multiple (3-5) x 20 mile runs at easy pace. For a 2:45, I reckon you need to run many long runs (up to 22 miles and beyond if necessary) including:
1) Portions of runs at at planned marathon pace
2) Progression runs, where you finish your long run at half marathon pace or faster
3) As someone previously suggested (Tergat maybe?) intervals during a long run.

I should add that I haven't reached the lofty heights of sub 2:45, but hopefully I will later this year.

menoscemo

I'd say an important part of long runs is to spend your goal time on your feet at least once. For example if you are targetting a 3hr marathon, try to do a 22 miler in 3 hours or more (about 8'10/mile+ pace).

TFBubendorfer

menoscemo wrote: »

I'd say an important part of long runs is to spend your goal time on your feet at least once. For example if you are targetting a 3hr marathon, try to do a 22 miler in 3 hours or more (about 8'10/mile+ pace).

The training plan that got me under 3 hours was the exact opposite - it was the first training cycle in years where I had not run over 20 miles, not even once. The longest I spent on my feet was about 2:40 or so, but I never came close to 3 hours in training.

What made the difference was the significant amount of time spent running at marathon pace, especially at the end of long runs (e.g the last 5 miles of a 15 miler or, later in the program, the second 10 miles of a 20 mile run).

ThePiedPiper

I'd agree with both menescomo and Thomas here. To get under 3 hours this spring, I stretched out the longest run to 23 miles (2 hours 55 minutes). That run had 6 miles at PMP. I also did a couple of 21 mile runs whereas in other training schedules, I always topped out at 20 miles. Thomas' point is important though. My last 20 mile run had 12 miles at PMP. For other races, I'd done 20 miles and 17 mile long runs, all of them at PMP - this was not remotely clever.

Of huge benefit though in my opinion is a very solid base, lots of speed work/intervals maybe 3 months out from the marathon and consistency in training. There's no magic formula, just consistent and smart training.

Clearlier

Again, there's a big difference between what's needed for a 3:30 compared to a 2:45. Whatever time you're going for though I think that overall training volume is more important than the long runs although they are an important part of any marathon training plan.

For the 3:30 I'd do 1 - 2 20 mile runs mainly because they're going to have a big impact on the following weeks training. If it's the first time that the runner has run this far then they should just 'get' the distance and forget about pace. For the second run they should aim at something like MP+ 45-60 seconds although I wouldn't get too hung up about the time (obviously allow for terrain etc.). It's important to practice eating/taking gels on at least one of these runs.

Somebody looking for 2:45 is obviously going to be running for a lot less time to get to 20 miles and it should have a much smaller impact on the following weeks training. Maybe 5 * 20 mile runs with one of them going out to the 22 - 24 mile range in the 4 months preceding the marathon should be enough for most. It has become a bit fashionable in some parts recently to run the marathon distance in training but I'd reserve than for when you're aiming closer to 2:25. Pacewise I agree about marathon pace sections. At the 2:45 level though I'd lean towards leaving out the intervals or the complicated long runs with sections @ mp and hmp that Jack Daniels suggests. It depends on your overall running volume and the impact that these session will have on your training for the following week.

As a rule of thumb no matter what pace you run at your long runs should be hitting in or around the 2hr mark at least.

Remember training for most people in the 2:45 - 3:30 range is about getting the biggest bang for your buck. All other things being equal you'll get more out of a 50 mile week with a long run of 15 miles than a 35 mile week with a long run of 20 miles.

Krusty_Clown

Clearlier wrote: »

At the 2:45 level though I'd lean towards leaving out the intervals or the complicated long runs with sections @ mp and hmp that Jack Daniels suggests.

Can you elaborate on this Clearlier? Most programs seem to advocate the opposite, in that every other run would have some form of marathon pace mileage during the long run (P&D, Daniels, etc). Or am I misinterpreting your comment? Are you just suggesting that the long run shouldn't be over-complicated, but sections at planned pace are acceptable, as long as it doesn't impact the following week's training? Interested in your thoughts.

Marthastew

Clearlier wrote: »

Remember training for most people in the 2:45 - 3:30 range is about getting the biggest bang for your buck. All other things being equal you'll get more out of a 50 mile week with a long run of 15 miles than a 35 mile week with a long run of 20 miles.

I'd most definitely be the lower end; 3.30 range (with lots of hard work and a lot of luck) but I'm interested in the point you made above; training for DCM last year I was plagued by shin splints so the only part of my training plan (Hal Higdon) I stuck to rigidly was the long runs. What's the theory behind more miles per week as opposed to keeping the long runs sacred? In terms of confidence and race strategy it would be easy enough to stick to just two or three long runs if you know how you cope on longer runs and during the marathon. I've just invested in Advanced Marathoning so maybe when I've read through it your point will be cleared up for me.:)

ecoli

I would agree with Clearier regarding the long run capacity and frequency should be proportional to your weekly mileage.

As such a person aiming for 3.30 would be doing less mileage than those aiming for 2.45. That mileage shoudl be spread out over the week and should aim to avoid dramatic increases in mileage between easy miles and long runs. This will reduce the recovery time as well as injury risk

For example if someone is used to running 6-7 miles on easy runs (3.30 runner) then a 20 mile run is going to take alot longer to recover from a 20 miler than someone who is running 10-12 miles on their easy runs (2.45).

A person would benefit more from progressing their long run in relation to their weekly mileage so someone running 70 miles a week can build mileage to run 20 milers more frequently without having to spend longer recovering.

In relation to Marthastews question it is better to spread your miles out where you can to ensure the body has the right level of stress. Think of it like a foot on a sheet of ice. Its better to wear a wide shoe than a stilleto to prevent the ice breaking. The ice here being your body by spreading out the miles you prevent body breaking down

For a 3.30 runner I would say one to two 20+ runs would be sufficient and increase the frequency in relation to your mileage which would progress as the target increases

ecoli

Clearlier wrote: »

At the 2:45 level though I'd lean towards leaving out the intervals or the complicated long runs with sections @ mp and hmp that Jack Daniels suggests. It depends on your overall running volume and the impact that these session will have on your training for the following week.

I would agree with you up until the 3 hour mark with this i think the emphasis should be on development of the aerobic capacity of the athlete but i think once you get into sub 3 ranges there is more of an emphasis on the likes of intervals

While the Marathon is predominantly uses the aerobic system i think that the anaerobic also must be addressed. At this point the aerobic capacity is built to a level which would yield less of a benefit in terms of improvement if continued to focus on this independently. By developing anaerobically your body becomes more efficient at oxygen uptake. This allows you to further boost you aerobic capacity as a result

theboyblunder

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Once you get into sub-3 territory, a generic training plan becomes less and less useful.

Interesting thread this.

Hope this isnt too far off topic. Im a little bemused at this notion that generic plans not being useful as one gets 'faster'. Because we are all basically fun runners (relative to elites) with jobs/commitments etc. and are reading each others logs, I think we tend to get a skewed vision of what a 'fast' marathon is. I definitely include myself in this.

I worked extremely hard to get 2:57 earlier this year. I followed a generic training plan. It worked very well. Why? Because 2:57 is not a particularly quick time. Its very quick for me and represented a bit of a dream come true, and ive been running for a while, chipping minutes off my first marathon time of 3:30 as I went, but its not fast in the greater scheme of things.

The winner of my race finished in 2:07. Thats a 50 minute gap back to me. When I look at the video of me finishing, we all look like plodders, no knee lift etc. Whether youre a first timer struggling to get around, or a sub-3 runner trying to shave ever diminishing amounts off your PB, I think that you have so much left to improve upon (considering that there is less genetic variation in the entire human race than there is in your average chimapanzee troup) that any well-thought out plan covering the usual components will do. Even a 2:30 marathon runner will be beaten literally by miles in a big-city marathon. Those matchstick guys need individual plans. For the rest of us, from 4.30 to 2.3X (I guess - who knows where the border is?) generic plans are fine IMO, we are not that finely tuned that a one-size-fits-all approach wont work (thank god!)

ecoli

theboyblunder wrote: »

Interesting thread this.

Hope this isnt too far off topic. Im a little bemused at this notion that generic plans not being useful as one gets 'faster'. Because we are all basically fun runners (relative to elites) with jobs/commitments etc. and are reading each others logs, I think we tend to get a skewed vision of what a 'fast' marathon is. I definitely include myself in this.

I worked extremely hard to get 2:57 earlier this year. I followed a generic training plan. It worked very well. Why? Because 2:57 is not a particularly quick time. Its very quick for me and represented a bit of a dream come true, and ive been running for a while, chipping minutes off my first marathon time of 3:30 as I went, but its not fast in the greater scheme of things.

The winner of my race finished in 2:07. Thats a 50 minute gap back to me. When I look at the video of me finishing, we all look like plodders, no knee lift etc. Whether youre a first timer struggling to get around, or a sub-3 runner trying to shave ever diminishing amounts off your PB, I think that you have so much left to improve upon (considering that there is less genetic variation in the entire human race than there is in your average chimapanzee troup) that any well-thought out plan covering the usual components will do. Even a 2:30 marathon runner will be beaten literally by miles in a big-city marathon. Those matchstick guys need individual plans. For the rest of us, from 4.30 to 2.3X (I guess - who knows where the border is?) generic plans are fine IMO, we are not that finely tuned that a one-size-fits-all approach wont work (thank god!)

I think the point that is trying to be made is not that you wont improve with a generic plan but rather as you get to levels sub 3 hours you take less and less of your PB that you must take your body into account more.

If you took 10 runners with PBs of 2.30,2.40,2.50 and 3.00 and give them a generic plan. You would see some improve significantly, some slightly some stagnate and some go backwards. Why? because different people react to things differently.

Growing up I trained in a group of 6 athletes doing the same training etc. Where are we now? One is an international sprinter, one an elite/sub elite middle distance runner, 2 average level long distance club runners and one who is plagued with injury who has not run competitively in a couple of years.

The point is not that it wont work for alot of people but rather at the level of commitment taken at this level on top of our lives can we afford to be one of the few the plan doesnt work for. Making personal adjestments can assure continued significant improvement