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

Clearlier

This is turning into a nice thread! I'd like to mention that although my writing style makes me come across as being quite certain and confident about what I write I am actually expressing my current thoughts on what works. If you'd have asked me 6 months ago I probably would have given different answers.

Krusty - You got what I was trying to say in the second part of your reply which is that there's plenty of space for marathon pace running but don't kill yourself adding in hmp and/or threshold running. The reference to Jack Daniels was for his liking for sessions that mix up threshold, marathon pace and easy running. For sure they help you get fitter but for most runners at the 2:45 level 14 miles of marathon pace, 2 miles of threshold pace and 6 miles of easy pace (mixed up) will take to much out. If you're running 100+mpw then you could probably handle it but I doubt that there are too many runners doing that kind of mileage for a 2:45.

In respect of marathon pace running in general I've just recently come to think that marathon pace running is important at all levels not so much because it gives you pace judgement but because it bridges the gap between easy and hard runs and I think that you need to improve your ability at all levels of effort. It's kind of like a medium pace/effort run. They can be done on their own or as part of the long run. It's important that it's done on terrain similar to what you race on though. I personally like to find a low key race and do a long warm up beforehand to make up the long run but that's because all my other long runs are done on an off-road hilly route.

Martha - Advanced Marathoning is a great book, I keep going back to it. It probably gives you 90% of what anybody needs. The last 10% being person specific. Unless you do base building beforehand I think that the 18 week plans are much better than the 12 week plans. In respect of why overall mileage is more important than long runs - it's because the more you run the better you'll get at running. That said and I probably didn't make this as clear as I could have, when training for a marathon you do need a long run each week, it should last at least 2 hours and I think that there are benefits to going out to 20 miles at least once and possibly twice even though it will have an impact on the following week.

ecoli - I wouldn't leave out intervals for a 2:45 runner - I just wouldn't include them in the long run. I'm guessing that Woddle's going to have a question about intervals/tempos/faster running in the not too distant future so I'll not expound on what I think about that just yet.
Really interesting point on the anaerobic/aerobic relationship. In training I tend to notice fitness boosts about every 6 weeks and I had spotted that their impact was diminished if some kind of faster running wasn't done to 'lock in' the improvement. I think that this applies at all levels though and may not be exactly what you were thinking.

TBB - ecoli said most of what I think but perhaps instead of faster - think of it as approaching your peak - a peak which is probably limited by living life (family, work, etc.) rather than physical ability. It then becomes about getting the biggest bang for your buck. Not many would advise a 5hour marathon runner to spend much time developing their anaerobic capacity - there's still loads of scope for aerobic development. A sub 2:10 Kenyan however will do some savage sessions to get the last little bit out of their ability. When you get to sub-3 you start having a mix of people, some highly talented lightweights can run sub-3 with relatively little aerobic development and should focus their efforts there. Other well trained 60 year olds running sub-3 would probably get more benefit out of including anaerobic training in their plan. I've meandered a little here but hope it makes enough sense.

ecoli

Clearlier wrote: »

Krusty - You got what I was trying to say in the second part of your reply which is that there's plenty of space for marathon pace running but don't kill yourself adding in hmp and/or threshold running. The reference to Jack Daniels was for his liking for sessions that mix up threshold, marathon pace and easy running. For sure they help you get fitter but for most runners at the 2:45 level 14 miles of marathon pace, 2 miles of threshold pace and 6 miles of easy pace (mixed up) will take to much out. If you're running 100+mpw then you could probably handle it but I doubt that there are too many runners doing that kind of mileage for a 2:45.

In respect of marathon pace running in general I've just recently come to think that marathon pace running is important at all levels not so much because it gives you pace judgement but because it bridges the gap between easy and hard runs and I think that you need to improve your ability at all levels of effort. It's kind of like a medium pace/effort run. They can be done on their own or as part of the long run. It's important that it's done on terrain similar to what you race on though. I personally like to find a low key race and do a long warm up beforehand to make up the long run but that's because all my other long runs are done on an off-road hilly route.

Would definitely agree. In the long run, miles at MP should be added and be progressive (much like the mileage of the long run). Personallly i feel that adding threshold to your long run is a bit of a disaster as it takes too much out of the body that hampers your overall training in terms of recovery time.

Each session must be looked at in the grand scheme of things, no point in doing a "monster session" if you miss another session later in the week because you are recovering from it. I would leave threshold paced running for seperate independent sessions. Each run should have a purpose and not try to fit too much into one session.

There are times when progression runs can be useful however the duration of these is usually more in line with easy run duration or medium length runs

Clearlier wrote: »

ecoli - I wouldn't leave out intervals for a 2:45 runner - I just wouldn't include them in the long run. I'm guessing that Woddle's going to have a question about intervals/tempos/faster running in the not too distant future so I'll not expound on what I think about that just yet.
Really interesting point on the anaerobic/aerobic relationship. In training I tend to notice fitness boosts about every 6 weeks and I had spotted that their impact was diminished if some kind of faster running wasn't done to 'lock in' the improvement. I think that this applies at all levels though and may not be exactly what you were thinking.

Apologies I misinterpretted your post I agree your long runs should be left to easy run with marathon paced segments at quickest added (normally i would only add MP miles to every second week as opposed to every week and add a session the day before instead).

I can see how "locking in" of fitness boosts could be seen. For me the idea that one of the main principles of training would be variety. Do too much of the same thing and you get good at doing just that but body then becomes shocked by introduction of another variable (in marathon maybe one or too miles too fast could ruin your race by shocking the body if this training philosophy is followed). By stressing the body in different ways you boost your fitness on an overall scale as opposed to specific (which could be seen as stagnation).

While it does apply to all levels i feel that runners beyond three hours normally find the aerobic aspect continually stressing and as a result stagnation does not occur to the same extent (just in my experience).

However my references were more in line with 10k paced work etc in mind, as such when i discuss aerobic development this would include threshold paced (Tempo) work to some extent also so for people in the 3-3.30 threshold pace could be construed as the "faster running" which is spoken of. Again this would be based on an athletes level coming into training program (not their speed but rather their running background)

dev123

ecoli wrote: »

Would definitely agree. In the long run, miles at MP should be added and be progressive (much like the mileage of the long run). Personallly i feel that adding threshold to your long run is a bit of a disaster as it takes too much out of the body that hampers your overall training in terms of recovery time.

Each session must be looked at in the grand scheme of things, no point in doing a "monster session" if you miss another session later in the week because you are recovering from it. I would leave threshold paced running for seperate independent sessions. Each run should have a purpose and not try to fit too much into one session.

A lot of Daniel's sessions include tempo intervals mixed in with easy pace miles for his quality sessions.

From what I understand Daniels is a believer in getting the most out of as little effort as possible.

By running 2 miles easy, then 5 x 6min tempo intervals with 1 minute rests and then 1 hour easy puts you in a fatigued state with lactic acid build-up, elevated heart rate and core body temeperature. For that last hour of easy pace running you are in a physical state that may have taken 10 miles of easy running to get to.

I completed the session above last night and covered just over 12 miles. However, due to the interval session at the beginning the last mile or two of the 1 hour at easy pace was definitely tougher than the last miles of a 12 mile run at easy pace throughout.

Is this what Daniels is trying to achieve? Get you fatigued early and then start your easy run thus reducing the amount of time on your feet and thus reducing the risk of injury?

ecoli

dev123 wrote: »

Is this what Daniels is trying to achieve? Get you fatigued early and then start your easy run thus reducing the amount of time on your feet and thus reducing the risk of injury?

Yes I believe that this is where Daniels is coming from (havent read his book in a while so couldnt confirm off hand). Daniels training methods are based on the notion of getting quality over quantity of miles and getting the most out of the miles put in.

As many coaches will tell you there is more than one way to skin a cat and likewise in athletics there are many ways to get to the same destination (which is why this sport has yet to be "cracked" as it were in terms of training methodology)

For me I would be based along more specific sessions with each training session having its own purpose. As such easy runs are to develop aerobic base and aid in recovery from session.Anaerobic (Tempo) Threshold sessions are for the develop the threshold in order to be able to maintain higher intensity with the production of blood lactate, Aerobic threshold pace (Marathon paced/ steady state running) is to simulate race day in terms of form while carrying out a particular pace, Long runs time in feet (though sometimes these can be used together for race day simulation again) and Vo2Max sessions (intervals) to help boost Anaerobic capacity in an attempt to boost aerobic fitness.

With Daniels i think his training is based around the aspects of a successful training plan being independent of each other and as a result he tries to fit all the aspects into the training as independent components eg. Tempo and easy running pace boost different aspects of fitness so therefor each have to be fit in to make sure one aspect is not lagging.

Also the role of fatigue in terms of the Central Governing theory is not taken into account (possibly because this is a debatable theory). CGT suggests that your brain subconsciously doles out energy to your exercising muscles with the goals of preserving a state of homoeostasis and preventing any possible catastrophic physiological failure such as rigor or heart problems.

High intensity running or prolonged running at moderate paces places high energy demands upon your body. Your brain reacts by trying to maintain the equilibrium in the body and as a result tries to reduce muscle fiber recuritment. By fatiguing the body before your easy run you are actually inhibitting some of the benefits normally attained from your hour easy running

Again like i said this is only my take on it and there are many ways to skin a cat. Other people may disagree as CGT is a heavily debated so by using it I am probably opening myself to criticism

dev123

ecoli wrote: »

Also the role of fatigue in terms of the Central Governing theory is not taken into account (possibly because this is a debatable theory). CGT suggests that your brain subconsciously doles out energy to your exercising muscles with the goals of preserving a state of homoeostasis and preventing any possible catastrophic physiological failure such as rigor or heart problems.

High intensity running or prolonged running at moderate paces places high energy demands upon your body. Your brain reacts by trying to maintain the equilibrium in the body and as a result tries to reduce muscle fiber recuritment. By fatiguing the body before your easy run you are actually inhibitting some of the benefits normally attained from your hour easy running

Again like i said this is only my take on it and there are many ways to skin a cat. Other people may disagree as CGT is a heavily debated so by using it I am probably opening myself to criticism

With repsect to the CGT I would say that by completing some easy miles after a tempo interval session gives you a chance to "re-programme" the Central Governing mechanism by pushing through the easy miles in a fatigued state. It gives you the chance to run some easy miles when you feel like you are at the end of an 18 mile run with out the need to run for 2.5 - 3 hours.

I'm all for having to tap into mental resources after 1.30 rather than 2.30 hours.

Daniels does specify some straight up 2-2.5 easy pace runs but this idea of running easy miles when fatigued and even following up the fatigued easy miles with a further tempo run of 15-20 mins is a recurring theme.

ecoli

dev123 wrote: »

With repsect to the CGT I would say that by completing some easy miles after a tempo interval session gives you a chance to "re-programme" the Central Governing mechanism by pushing through the easy miles in a fatigued state. It gives you the chance to run some easy miles when you feel like you are at the end of an 18 mile run with out the need to run for 2.5 - 3 hours.

The one flaw with GCT is that there are two elements peripheral (more mental) and central (strictly physical). The strictly physical aspect would say running while fatigued does not do benefit (blood PH levels and the fatigue factor inhibitting muscle fiber recruitment as well as muscle contraction)

You are right however and the mental element comes into factor here (which is why it works for so many people) as you are still getting some benefit which exceeds the physical

Again different coaches have different approaches and I would me more along the lines of Lydiard based theories as opposed to Daniels

dev123

ecoli wrote: »

The one flaw with GCT is that there are two elements peripheral (more mental) and central (strictly physical). The strictly physical aspect would say running while fatigued does not do benefit (blood PH levels and the fatigue factor inhibitting muscle fiber recruitment as well as muscle contraction)

You are right however and the mental element comes into factor here (which is why it works for so many people) as you are still getting some benefit which exceeds the physical

Again different coaches have different approaches and I would me more along the lines of Lydiard based theories as opposed to Daniels

Thanks for the clarification ecoli.

I'm gonna be giving Daniel's a go for Dublin in Ocotober and while tempo / easy pace sessions are frequent in the 18 week plan there will hopefully be enough easy miles in there to get the benefit from these type of runs.

Clearlier

Seems like the questions have stopped which is a shame but I'd still be interested in your thoughts ecoli on faster than marathon pace running in a marathon training schedule and on peaking.

Obviously you have tempo/lactate threshold runs. I think that most plans have them in from an early stage. Cruise intervals are an alternative from a physiological standpoint but psychologically for a marathon I think that runners are better off sticking to a long tempo than several long intervals.

For my own training I've been heavily influenced by Lydiard's ideas and have almost completely excluded intervals on the grounds that I'm nowhere near maximising my aerobic capacity and can benefit more by working on that than on my anaerobic system. For a couple of reasons I've begun to regret that approach. As I mentioned earlier in the thread I feel that I lose the benefits that I get from aerobic training if I don't somehow 'lock in' the improvement. Fast intervals worked once and I should possibly have maintained that. That said I do wonder if regular tempos (I always screwed them up by running too fast) allied to strides a couple of times a week might be enough to get the effect without the need to do intervals which obviously have a cost to other types of training. The other reason I regret it is that I'm now an awful lot slower than I used to be over shorter distances although I'm not sure how relevant that is to marathon training. I'm toying with the idea of introducing very short hill sprints with full recovery once a week to see if that makes a difference.

I run for Bournemouth AC (moved over from Dublin about 2 years ago) and the focus here is on the London marathon. One interesting change this year was that a couple of the guys got together with Liz Yelling who lives nearby and sometimes runs sessions with us and put together the following sessions starting in January:

3 x 15 mins tempo Threshold/Tempo/HM
3 x 10 mins each rep quicker Progressive
18 mins MP > 5 x 3 mins > 18 mins MP Marathon pace + intervals
2 x 27 mins tempo Threshold/Tempo/HM
20 mins MP > 5 x 4 mins > 20 mins MP Marathon pace + intervals
3 x 10 mins each rep quicker Progressive
5 x 1 mile (MP for those with HM in legs) Marathon pace, or faster if fresh
20 mins MP > 12 HMP > 6 > 4 > 3 > 2 > 2 > 2 MP through to VO2 max
3 x 10 mins each rep quicker Progressive
5 x 1 mile (MP for those with HM in legs) Marathon pace, or faster if fresh

There were other sessions following those which were on a similar theme right up to the event.
Those who did these training sessions all performed very well (with the exception of Liz who probably over-reached and one poor guy who ran from toilet to toilet after the 8 mile point), several PB's, one guy within a second of his PB despite injury issues and strong runs from some more 'experienced' runners. I wasn't able to make any of the sessions which was a pity. The only guidance given was that the intervals should be faster than marathon pace but slower than 5k pace (I'd imagine 10m - HM pace). The interesting thing here for me is that this seems to be a lot of marathon pace and tempo mixed up together. Perhaps not a million miles from what Daniels advocates.

On Daniels - I haven't properly worked out what he has to say yet but I have noticed that his focus (unsurprisingly) is on the development of athletes in their late teens and early twenties.

Another approach to peaking for a marathon which some may have seen on letsrun was posted by Renato Canova (coach to some of the top Kenyans). He talks about the following kind of workouts in the 6-8 prior to the taper:

Aerobic Power Workouts (one per week):
1) 10 x 800 w 1:30 jog @ 110-112% of MP (5:04-5:09/mile)
2) 6 x 1 mile w 2 min jog @ 108-109% of MP (5:12-5:15/mile)
3) 4 x 2 mile w 3 min jog @ 105-106% of MP (5:21-5:24/mile)
4) 3 x 3 mile w 4 min jog @ 103-104% of MP (5:27-5:30/mile)
5) 2 x 4 mile w 4:30 jog @ 102-103% of MP (5:30-5:33/mile)
6) 2 x 5 mile w 5 min jog @ 101-102% of MP (5:33-5:37/mile)
7) 6 mile continuous run @ 104-105% of MP (5:24-5:27/mile)
8) 8 mile progression run @ 100-106% of MP (5:21-5:40/mile)

Aerobic Endurance Workouts (one per week):
1) 18-22 miles steady run @ 90-95% of MP (5:58-6:18/mile)
2) 24-26 miles easy run @ 80-85% of MP (6:40-7:05/mile)
3) 18-22 miles progression run @ 85-100% of MP (5:40-6:40/mile)
4) 12-15 miles simulation run @ 100% of MP (5:40/mile)
5) 20 miles - last 5-10 miles @ 100% of MP (5:40/mile)
6) 20 miles incorporating 10 x 800 @ 103% of MP w 800 jog (5:30/mile)
7) 6-7 miles @ 85% + 6-7 miles @ 100% of MP (workout done AM and PM)

Whatever about the aerobic power workouts the endurance ones are unimaginable without a consistent diet of 90+mpw. (my current holy grail for marathon training is to do several months of Lydiard's 100mpw base training followed by 7-8 weeks of the above incorporated into 100 mile weeks - I think that it would produce a pretty quick marathon runner!). I suspect that most runners could incorporate cut down versions of the speed sessions and I'm tempted to introduce it into a P&D plan replacing the VO2 max sessions.

Ok, time for me to stop rambling

Woddle

Clearlier wrote: »

Seems like the questions have stopped which is a shame

The thread and questions certainly havn't finished yet
I'd like to see this thread hang around for some time with alot of nuggets.

Here's a link to an excellent read from our own TBF, I'm sure he won't mind and if he does I'm sure he'll let me know
Thanks for sharing.
TBF training with mystery coach

Given that we're already discussing intervals and tempos, I think we can make that our next topic, so how do you do yours.

macinalli

I'd also be curious about the ideal balance of a training week. I'd like to run an average of 5 times per week for my upcoming marathon (Liverpool) and am still a bit unsure of how to structure the week. I do my LSR on Saturday, that's obviously essential. Otherwise I have access through work to a tempo run, a fartlek session, a track session and 2 recovery runs. I don't think that I can do them all, but likewise I'm not sure on what to leave out and don't want to include too many tough sessions per week.

To answer Woddles question, the only intervals that I do are fartlek. These are fairly well structured and the shorter legs (maybe 1-2 min) are no faster than 5k pace, the longer ones (3 min max) are no faster than 10k pace. These have a strict 30 sec recovery between legs. The tempo run is usually about 6.5k and starts off at about 4.45/k and peaks at about 4.15/k. Again this would be slower than 10k race pace.

The group that I run with do these sessions all year round so they're not marathon specific. My thinking for the upcoming training was to keep the fartlek as is, and gradually increase the length of the tempo run, not sure how that matches with other peoples training plans?

And this is a good thread - would like to see it continue!

woodchopper

7) 6-7 miles @ 85% + 6-7 miles @ 100% of MP (workout done AM and PM)

[/QUOTE]

Also Cavona's athletes can only eat vegetables between this workout. No carbs are allowed. The idea been that they start the second workout in a glycogen depleted state, in an attempt to simulate the latter stages of a marathon.

ecoli

Clearlier wrote: »

Obviously you have tempo/lactate threshold runs. I think that most plans have them in from an early stage. Cruise intervals are an alternative from a physiological standpoint but psychologically for a marathon I think that runners are better off sticking to a long tempo than several long intervals.

For my own training I've been heavily influenced by Lydiard's ideas and have almost completely excluded intervals on the grounds that I'm nowhere near maximising my aerobic capacity and can benefit more by working on that than on my anaerobic system. For a couple of reasons I've begun to regret that approach. As I mentioned earlier in the thread I feel that I lose the benefits that I get from aerobic training if I don't somehow 'lock in' the improvement. Fast intervals worked once and I should possibly have maintained that. That said I do wonder if regular tempos (I always screwed them up by running too fast) allied to strides a couple of times a week might be enough to get the effect without the need to do intervals which obviously have a cost to other types of training. The other reason I regret it is that I'm now an awful lot slower than I used to be over shorter distances although I'm not sure how relevant that is to marathon training. I'm toying with the idea of introducing very short hill sprints with full recovery once a week to see if that makes a difference.

I mentored the sub 3 marathon thread here last year with the same thoughts in mind. I put the emphasis of quality sessions on HM - M pace almost solely with strides added just to keep turn over going. In hindsight I see this as one of the reasons it was not as successful as should have been but since then I have had more coaching success regarding this barrier

Since then I have come to see more benefit with the introduction of 10k paced sessions. The emphasis of these sessions was rhythm running. The idea behind these came from my own coach a sub 2.18 marathon runner. The reps were kept short with short recovery (400s-800s). I have come to favour the ratio of 4:1 in terms of distance: recovery so for every 400m ran 100m jog recovery. The amount of reps was kept high (12-20 depending on the athletes weekly mileage). The advantages to this is reps are short enough that they are not as taxing on the body as longer sustained efforts yet you still get the distance covered to allow the mileage conducive to marathon training. It also allows for these sessions to be conducted without the need for long term recovery which would compromise the rest of the weeks training
These again would be in the first half of your marathon plan and should be blended with Tempo paced running as well as hills and as the plan goes on (in the second half of the plan (last 8-12 weeks) move to more Marathon specific sessions while still retaining some sort of element. Many people fail to see that training particular systems should not be independent as the benefits arent as such. Different aspects are interconnected which is why variety in training is paramount.

My usual schedule outline would be as follows (2 week cycle with 2 per week)

1 10k paced session
1 Threshold run
1 hill session
1 LSR w/PMP miles

This way the LSR is alternated between easy one week and the second week it counts as 1 of the two weekly sessions

Would also include one or two Vo2 Max sessions throughout the plan just to provide differnt stimulus so that it is not ignored as can have slight benefit even to marathon runners (that 1% anaerobic component of marathon running cannot be ignored)


Here is something i posted in a previous thread regarding variety

ecoli wrote: »

4 Aspects to a successful training plan i believe which will bring a runner on are as follows.

Consistency, Capacity, Frequency, Mixture

In order to make the most gains and realize your full potential as a runner you have to maximize each area in unison with the others.

That means get in the right mixture of work: speed work, threshold work, long runs, races, and don't let any area fall behind. You have to work on all aspects year round.

Do this consistently, week after week, month after month and year after year. There is no short cuts in running, it takes time to realize your full potential.

You need to improve your frequency, slowly over time until you are running anything between 6-13 times a week (or cross train depending on injury history again this is ability to listen to ones body)

You need to slowly build your capacity/mileage over time, but only in conjuction with the proper mixture. This means that the usual 18 week plan coming up to a marathon should only tell 1/2 the story of the work put in through cumulative miles throughout the last three to four years

Big jumps in either mileage or quality don't work 9 out of 10 times because they aren't sustainable be it injury risk or sickness.

No short-cuts, just look at these 4 tenets and slowly and methodically over time improve on them. Maintain good mixture while increasing your capacity and frequency.

Too many people just pick out 1 of the 4 areas and then go overboard on it and that just doesn't work in the end.

Runners are like chains, we are only as good as our leakest links.

Improve your consistency until you are training solidly year round except for occassional planned short regeneration breaks.

Improve your capacity until you have reached your own personal maximum amount that you can do while keeping up the other areas.

Keep you mixture in balance with regular work on all areas.

You won't be able to make big changes to any area very quickly but will have to work on all areas (starting with whatever your weakest is) slowly over time

There are no magic formulas or sessions just keep it Simple and constant and you will see the results

ecoli

Clearlier wrote: »

I'm toying with the idea of introducing very short hill sprints with full recovery once a week to see if that makes a difference.

This is something I have found to be very beneficial in early stages of training. This has a number of benefits on top of speed development, including stride efficiency and explosive power.

Many athletes use this during base building phase to maintain speed but there is no reason why you cant use it in marathon training to give the fast twitch fibers in the muscle some stimulus.

The idea with these is 8-10 secs up very steep hill at maximum effort with full recovery (2-3 min)

TFBubendorfer

Woddle wrote: »

Here's a link to an excellent read from our own TBF, I'm sure he won't mind and if he does I'm sure he'll let me know
Thanks for sharing.
TBF training with mystery coach

I didn't put my training on the interwebthingy to keep it secret, you know. :rolleyes:
Fitting in with the recent posts here, I spent quite a lot of time running 10 seconds per mile faster than MP. Not quite tempo pace, but it made MP feel easier eventually and I think it was absolutely crucial. My coach was very fond of doing these the day before a long run, which invariably meant I got used to running on very tired legs.

Woddle wrote: »

Given that we're already discussing intervals and tempos, I think we can make that our next topic, so how do you do yours.

Intervals and tempos are 2 different things. And I think that intervals are the least important part of marathon training (I'm Lydiard influenced as well).

heffsarmy

Clearlier wrote: »

Aerobic Power Workouts (one per week): 1) 10 x 800 w 1:30 jog @ 110-112% of MP (5:04-5:09/mile)
2) 6 x 1 mile w 2 min jog @ 108-109% of MP (5:12-5:15/mile) 3) 4 x 2 mile w 3 min jog @ 105-106% of MP (5:21-5:24/mile)
4) 3 x 3 mile w 4 min jog @ 103-104% of MP (5:27-5:30/mile)
5) 2 x 4 mile w 4:30 jog @ 102-103% of MP (5:30-5:33/mile)
6) 2 x 5 mile w 5 min jog @ 101-102% of MP (5:33-5:37/mile)
7) 6 mile continuous run @ 104-105% of MP (5:24-5:27/mile)
8) 8 mile progression run @ 100-106% of MP (5:21-5:40/mile)

Aerobic Endurance Workouts (one per week):
1) 18-22 miles steady run @ 90-95% of MP (5:58-6:18/mile)
2) 24-26 miles easy run @ 80-85% of MP (6:40-7:05/mile)
3) 18-22 miles progression run @ 85-100% of MP (5:40-6:40/mile)
4) 12-15 miles simulation run @ 100% of MP (5:40/mile)
5) 20 miles - last 5-10 miles @ 100% of MP (5:40/mile)
6) 20 miles incorporating 10 x 800 @ 103% of MP w 800 jog (5:30/mile)
7) 6-7 miles @ 85% + 6-7 miles @ 100% of MP (workout done AM and PM)

Clearlier thanks for posting these sessions, gonna give some these a go, my target is sub 2.30 saves me getting the calculator out

Clearlier

I'd like to give Woddle's question a direct answer but I don't think that I know enough to do that. A couple of observations though:
Tempo runs are important because they make marathon pace easier. They should be included in every plan.
If you're naturally reasonably quick and haven't run much before you don't really need intervals to run 3:30. The odd session to help sustain the fitness improvements that you see about every 6 weeks is as much as I think is necessary for this type of runner.
For somebody who has been running for a few years and progressed down from 4hr+ running they'll probably need to develop their speed so the hill sprints and 10k paced intervals probably need to feature regularly.

The 2:45 and faster runners that I know do intervals regularly and throughout the marathon specific preparation period. I don't know what paces they aim for although I suspect that it varies between 5k and 10k.

TFB - I'm sure that I'm not the first to say this but that was an epic race report. I really enjoyed reading it. Congratulations. From the point of view of this thread though your training report is even more interesting. It's the first time that I've seen a Lydiard style training plan actually implemented and adapted for as specific runner (all the previous stuff I have has been generic). I'll be reading it again and again I suspect. One question for you though is why was the eval workout only 4 miles and why was it done so frequently?

ecoli - I'll bring the hill sprints into my training then substituting in for one of the strides sessions (at least when my calf has recovered). Nice article on the need for balance in training. I think that novice runners may need to take into account their fitness background and put greater emphasis on one area than another (usually endurance), also ala TFB's account would need to be taken of the athletes response to different types of training.

The big difference between ecoli's balanced approach and TFB's plan is the outright periodisation (classic Lydiard) of the latter. That said I've read in two separate interviews Peter Snell saying that the only thing that he would change about Lydiard's training was that he would include intervals on a year round basis once a week (although in one interview he said long easy intervals and in another he said short ones ).

macinalli - Two or at most 3 tough sessions per week with as much easy running as possible is a reasonable rule of thumb. If you're doing intervals I'd make them longer. Even before my club moved to the session I posted earlier the shortest intervals we would have done for marathon training would have been 3mins. We usually did about 30 mins of hard running between 10*3mins and 3*10mins but like I said that results were noticeably better when the move was made to the sessions I detailed earlier in the thread. Perhaps you could persuade whoever you run with through work to alter the sessions. You could mention that they were put together by an Olympian who works professionally as a coach for runners for all standards. In terms of which sessions to do through work - the harder ones. Recovery runs are easy to do on your own and it removes some of the temptation that some people have (usually younger people to be fair) to run them a bit too quickly.

ecoli

Clearlier wrote: »

The big difference between ecoli's balanced approach and TFB's plan is the outright periodisation (classic Lydiard) of the latter. That said I've read in two separate interviews Peter Snell saying that the only thing that he would change about Lydiard's training was that he would include intervals on a year round basis once a week (although in one interview he said long easy intervals and in another he said short ones ).

I would agree with TFB regarding periodisation. While the balance of the different training stresses is there i think throughout a season its the emphasis that should change. Regarding hill work would be more inclined to moderate intensity early season to higher as it progresses. Likewise with intervals to be shorter early training program progressing to longer (to suit more marathon specific) un the latter half of a training program.

Personally I think that 20x400 @ 10k pace off short recovery is less taxing than mile reps on the body yet still providing similar stimulus which is why the shorter sessions would be included early in marathon training with sessions such as 6x1 mile @ 10k pace be better in the 8-12 weeks preceeding a marathon

Clearlier wrote: »

Recovery runs are easy to do on your own and it removes some of the temptation that some people have (usually younger people to be fair) to run them a bit too quickly.

I sometimes find it is the opposite and often runners sometimes push it too hard when they are on their own. An alternative approach to this is find someone or a group who normally you wouldnt run with because you feel their pace is slightly (only slightly talking 15-20 secs per mile) and run with them. On your long runs it often best to run too slow than too fast and doing these takes away the temptation (or even the fluke chance) that you may run to fast and hinder your recovery

ecoli

Clearlier wrote: »

ecoli - Nice article on the need for balance in training. I think that novice runners may need to take into account their fitness background and put greater emphasis on one area than another (usually endurance),

I agree with you that in novice trained athletes their would be more emphasis on endurance however this can be derived from different forms of training. For these hills might be based on building leg strength and form rather than for boosting aerobic/anaerobic fitness for example.

The different aspects are training are one side of the coin, the other is the distribution of them and this is where training needs to be tailored to the athlete.

Training methods and how to get faster/fitter are the easy part of this sport the thing that makes the sport difficult to train for is getting the blend right to suit their own personal physiological demands

TFBubendorfer

Clearlier wrote: »

TFB - I'm sure that I'm not the first to say this but that was an epic race report. I really enjoyed reading it. Congratulations. From the point of view of this thread though your training report is even more interesting. It's the first time that I've seen a Lydiard style training plan actually implemented and adapted for as specific runner (all the previous stuff I have has been generic). I'll be reading it again and again I suspect. One question for you though is why was the eval workout only 4 miles and why was it done so frequently?

First of all, thanks. Second, I think my coach used to know Lydiard personally and either trained under him or trained under one of his 'boys'. Either way, he tended to quote him on a very regular basis.

Last, the 4 mile evaluation sessions were so short because it told him all he needed to know. He wrote two fairly short articles about the evaluations on someone else's blog (part 1 and part 2) and says "I have found that a run of about 25 minutes works very well. The first 10 minutes gives the systems time to stabilize and the next 15 minutes gives a good reading into the fitness of the runner".

The two things he looked out for most were the slowdown between the first and the the later miles, and the time it took for the HR to drop back to 130 while standing still immediately after completing the fourth mile. When I slowed down no more than about 5 seconds and recovered in little more than 30 seconds, we moved on from the aerobic base phase.

My problem right now is that I can do the same evaluation workouts on my own, no problem, but I don't really know how to react and adapt the training when the numbers are not what I expected.

TFBubendorfer

Oh, and if you, or anyone else, have questions about that training plan, I'm happy to discuss this either here or via email, no problem.