Just how important is running form?

ecoli

Seems to be the "in" thing at the moment so I thought it could be source of some good discussion.

Just how important is form to performance and injury prevention. I am not just talking about heel striking, pronation and supination. We see exceptions like Radcliffe (head bobbing), Kim Smith (looks like she is running on a limp), Jeptoo (medial rotation of knee and leg kick out), Bill Rodgers (cross body arm swing) and Patrick Makau (heel strike) and it seems to work for them so how big a role does your form play?

If we believe that form can reduce injury and increase performance how do people improve their running form? Drills? corrective footwear? barefoot running? neuromuscular strengthening exercises?

Interested to get peoples views on these aspects. We focus so much on the training the often area's like this are overlooked so I think it area to look towards for many people.

drquirky

ecoli wrote: »

We see exceptions like Radcliffe (head bobbing), Kim Smith (looks like she is running on a limp), Jeptoo (medial rotation of knee and leg kick out), Bill Rodgers (cross body arm swing) and Patrick Makau (heel strike) and it seems to work for them

I think this kinda answers your own question here Ecoli- For my money Radcliffe is the greatest female marathoner of all time, Jeptoo isn't super far behind. Macau is perhaps the greatest HM runner of all time and a 2:03 marathoner. Bill Rodgers is in the top 5 greatest road racers ever. At some point exceptions aren't really exceptions. I'm a pretty big proponent of whatever works for someone's own body (caveat- this may not apply in sprints)

ecoli

drquirky wrote: »

I think this kinda answers your own question here Ecoli- For my money Radcliffe is the greatest female marathoner of all time, Jeptoo isn't super far behind. Macau is perhaps the greatest HM runner of all time and a 2:03 marathoner. Bill Rodgers is in the top 5 greatest road racers ever. At some point exceptions aren't really exceptions. I'm a pretty big proponent of whatever works for someone's own body (caveat- this may not apply in sprints)

This was kinda the reason I listed these particular athletes. The point being is that can you overcome your own mechanics are is their a case to be made that there is a limited potential to an extent.

Look to Radcliffe and her reason spell of injuries, Similar Makau has had his fair share. Can your body be wrong to begin with and is their room for improvement in movement and efficiency in order to reduce injuries or can trying to change your "natural" movement be something that is counter productive to try and change?

ThePiedPiper

I think over a long period of time, a more efficient runner will suffer less injuries. Look at Haile Geb, his efficient, relatively short but massively fast leg stride seems to be about perfect. He's been 20 odd years at or within a hare's breath of the pinnacle of distance running without really any serious injury issues. The less efficient runners or those overstriding eventually have some sort of injury issues. It'll be interesting to see how Farah's body reacts to the longer distances, for example.

In my own experience, my very upright and rigid running form developed as a result of old back injuries. When I first started running, I absolutely had to keep good form in order to stay pain free in my back. It hasn't done me any harm injury wise I reckon. Earlier this year, I tried for a few weeks to start developing a forefront strike ala TRR. Suffered a good deal of pain in my legs with it, so moved back to my own natural midfoot/heel strike. Trying to change away from your own natural gait can be very tricky, something that would probably take a very long amount of time and patience.

TRR

RunForestRun wrote: »

In my own experience, my very upright and rigid running form developed as a result of old back injuries. When I first started running, I absolutely had to keep good form in order to stay pain free in my back. It hasn't done me any harm injury wise I reckon. Earlier this year, I tried for a few weeks to start developing a forefront strike ala TRR. Suffered a good deal of pain in my legs with it, so moved back to my own natural midfoot/heel strike. Trying to change away from your own natural gait can be very tricky, something that would probably take a very long amount of time and patience.

jaysus, I've the worst form in Western Europe. Major boo boo on your behalf

ecoli

TRR wrote: »

jaysus, I've the worst form in Western Europe. Major boo boo on your behalf

Agreed, if he was a horse he would have been put down years ago

TRR

ecoli wrote: »

Agreed, if he was a horse he would have been put down years ago

more like if I were a horse I would have been put out to stud years ago!

pa4

I think it all depends on the type of style, some people could have a very inefficent style but it wouldn't contribute to injury and vice versa.

Alberto Salazar seems to be a firm believer in efficent running styles. He's been training most of his group to change their style to make them more efficent and prevent injury. Heres a good article on 'the secrets to Mo Farahs success' and talk about how he changed his running style to improve his performance.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/athletics/10309714/The-secrets-of-Mo-Farahs-success.html

ThePiedPiper

Not so much your weird looking running style, more so just trying to slightly move the strike to the forefoot.. Fortnight of it near buckled me though...

Chivito550

Can't speak for distance running but for sprinting good form is essential.

Then again Michael Johnson had a very unconventional style and he did ok. Calvin Smith had fairly unusual technique also so who knows. But if you were teaching a kid from scratch you would show videos of Allyson Felix's technique than of the two mentioned above.

Remember that Chinese distance runner Sun Yingie from the early to mid 2000s? She had the funniest style. Would keep her arms almost straight, her hands below her hips while she ran. She still seemed to get on ok (albeit while juiced up to her eyeballs!).

Ceepo

pa4 wrote: »

I think it all depends on the type of style, some people could have a very inefficent style but it wouldn't contribute to injury and vice versa.

Alberto Salazar seems to be a firm believer in efficent running styles. He's been training most of his group to change their style to make them more efficent and prevent injury. Heres a good article on 'the secrets to Mo Farahs success' and talk about how he changed his running style to improve his performance.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/athletics/10309714/The-secrets-of-Mo-Farahs-success.html

No mention in the article of all the injury's Ryan Hall picked up when changing his running style.

Ceepo

Great article on the subject,

Beware it is long,

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/04/running-technique-the-footstrike/

ecoli

Chivito550 wrote: »

Then again Michael Johnson had a very unconventional style and he did ok.

The Irony is that his performance centre is heavily based on developing biomechanical function

ecoli

RunForestRun wrote: »

Not so much your weird looking running style, more so just trying to slightly move the strike to the forefoot.. Fortnight of it near buckled me though...

Problem is if you are not used to that kind of running you to work on ankle mobility and range of movement to dorsiflexion to tolerate the eccentric loading in forefoot strike

copacetic

pa4 wrote: »

I think it all depends on the type of style, some people could have a very inefficent style but it wouldn't contribute to injury and vice versa.

Alberto Salazar seems to be a firm believer in efficent running styles. He's been training most of his group to change their style to make them more efficent and prevent injury. Heres a good article on 'the secrets to Mo Farahs success' and talk about how he changed his running style to improve his performance.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/athletics/10309714/The-secrets-of-Mo-Farahs-success.html

Agreed, I run with a guy who has terrible form, big kickout with one foot, Newley looks like a limp etc, but is never injured.

I have 'excellent form' and am a neutral runner but have really high arches and don't absorb any impact at all really. So end up with plantar, and shin problems, and then can move right up in back etc. I'd say I'm injured times more than he is, even if I have potential to be a better runner.

So form is no related to injury at all in my opinion, form is related to getting the best from your body in efficiency and style.

pconn062

My running form naturally changed to a forefoot style as I switched to middle distance training last year. It's now the running style I use the whole time, in fact my runners now never wear on the heels and it's always the forefront area that goes first.

Timmaay

ecoli wrote: »

If we believe that form can reduce injury and increase performance how do people improve their running form? Drills? corrective footwear? barefoot running? neuromuscular strengthening exercises?

Drills and Mileage would be my vote! Most certainly I notice a trend amount the teenagers in the local club, a good few have some sort issue when they start out, headbobbing, dropped shoulder, arms out wide, legs turned etc when they start off running, however after 6months/1yr of decent training and they usually have clearly improved form. It generally isn't something that we'd specifically try to fix, unless its clearly holding the athlete back. However drills are an important part of our training, I think they have to help improve the athletes form, in general I do notice a trend amount the athletes who are lazy about doing drills, and having recurring form issues! The group I work with are mostly middle distance (8/15) athletics, and running form most certainly makes a big difference here, and in general we try get them to hold their form as long as possible in sessions etc. This does in my view then translate into an improved running form during their normal mileage then.

RayCun

ecoli wrote: »

We see exceptions like Radcliffe (head bobbing), Kim Smith (looks like she is running on a limp), Jeptoo (medial rotation of knee and leg kick out), Bill Rodgers (cross body arm swing) and Patrick Makau (heel strike) and it seems to work for them so how big a role does your form play?

Just looking at it mechanically, in all of these cases there is energy being wasted that could be put towards moving forward. Obviously not so much to outweigh everything else, but still... We could equally say that Zatopek ran in terrible shoes and Bannister hardly trained and they turned out okay...

Chivito550

RayCun wrote: »

Just looking at it mechanically, in all of these cases there is energy being wasted that could be put towards moving forward. Obviously not so much to outweigh everything else, but still... We could equally say that Zatopek ran in terrible shoes and Bannister hardly trained and they turned out okay...

Do you think Michael Johnson would have run faster than 43.18 if he ran with the technique of Allyson Felix?

Some things just work for some people, and adopting a more conventional method won't necessarily make them better athletes.

RayCun

I have no idea, I've never really watched Johnson run.

If you get any runner and try to make them change their style drastically, there's going to be a cost to the transition. Radcliffe has put in thousands upon thousands of miles with her head bouncing around the place, that's what she's used to. If you put a gun to her a few years ago and said "you must keep your head still while running" she would hate it. If she feels uncomfortable running like that her training would suffer, so the 1% increase in efficiency wouldn't compensate for the 5% decrease in motivation and the 10% increase in aches and pains as she adapted to the style. Same with Johnson, I presume. If you took him at his peak and tried to get him to change, the costs would be higher than the benefits.

But younger runners, or people younger in running like most posters here, are more plastic. They haven't put in 10,000 hours running in one way so are able to adapt more easily to a different way.

ecoli

RayCun wrote: »

But younger runners, or people younger in running like most posters here, are more plastic. They haven't put in 10,000 hours running in one way so are able to adapt more easily to a different way.

I get the point you are making here but the likes of Johnson started running before he was 12.

Timmaay wrote: »

Drills and Mileage would be my vote! Most certainly I notice a trend amount the teenagers in the local club, a good few have some sort issue when they start out, headbobbing, dropped shoulder, arms out wide, legs turned etc when they start off running, however after 6months/1yr of decent training and they usually have clearly improved form. It generally isn't something that we'd specifically try to fix, unless its clearly holding the athlete back. However drills are an important part of our training, I think they have to help improve the athletes form, in general I do notice a trend amount the athletes who are lazy about doing drills, and having recurring form issues! The group I work with are mostly middle distance (8/15) athletics, and running form most certainly makes a big difference here, and in general we try get them to hold their form as long as possible in sessions etc. This does in my view then translate into an improved running form during their normal mileage then.

I would be in the same camp as you and I think that form drills are something which can be overlooked coming from outside an athletics club background however it could be argued that you see many of the athletes who religiously do drills are in orthotics or have some injury issues. Obviously there can be other factors which contribute but could be an argument for drills not being as crucial a factor when it comes to injury prevention through good form.

I do however believe that good form can help with regards to performance and only appreciating it to its fullest extent in the last few years

antomagoo

Knew a fella (big on the tri scene) who had similar head bob like Radcliffes when on the bike. Always seemed like more of a tick to me brought on by expended effort.

Didn't Zapotek have an unusual style too.

Any argument for the case, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Or is it more that the unusual gaits/form associated with successful athletes are just one-offs & if they were to change to something more standard it wouldn't necessarily result in success.

ecoli

antomagoo wrote: »

Any argument for the case, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Or is it more that the unusual gaits/form associated with successful athletes are just one-offs & if they were to change to something more standard it wouldn't necessarily result in success.

Funny enough I came across this article when i was looking for anecdotal evidence regarding Rodgers and attempts made to change his form

http://www.runnersworld.com/race-training/why-running-form-matters?page=single

TFBubendorfer

RayCun wrote: »

But younger runners, or people younger in running like most posters here, are more plastic. They haven't put in 10,000 hours running in one way so are able to adapt more easily to a different way.

The 10,000 hours rule is overrated. You can find plenty of examples that contradict it. Dennis Kimetto springs to mind as an extreme one.

Ceepo

RayCun wrote: »

I have no idea, I've never really watched Johnson run.

If you get any runner and try to make them change their style drastically, there's going to be a cost to the transition. Radcliffe has put in thousands upon thousands of miles with her head bouncing around the place, that's what she's used to. If you put a gun to her a few years ago and said "you must keep your head still while running" she would hate it. If she feels uncomfortable running like that her training would suffer, so the 1% increase in efficiency wouldn't compensate for the 5% decrease in motivation and the 10% increase in aches and pains as she adapted to the style. Same with Johnson, I presume. If you took him at his peak and tried to get him to change, the costs would be higher than the benefits.

But younger runners, or people younger in running like most posters here, are more plastic. They haven't put in 10,000 hours running in one way so are able to adapt more easily to a different way.

Not contradicting here.

Radcliffe actually save energy running this way as she ran relaxed, so relaxed the her head bounced, if she was to stop her head from moving it would involve tensing up Neck and Shoulder muscles, which in effect would cause her to use energy.

Ceepo

I would be interested in getting some of your views to the link i posted on this
and if anyone read all the articles on running technique in the link.

I think he raises some very valid points,

RE, Drills.

I think that the there is a place for them, not just for, technique, but also to aid "firing up" Muscles, on a Neurological level, as done properly, it can help muscles to engage in the proper sequence

nerraw1111

Ceepo wrote: »

Not contradicting here.

Radcliffe actually save energy running this way as she ran relaxed, so relaxed the her head bounced, if she was to stop her head from moving it would involve tensing up Neck and Shoulder muscles, which in effect would cause her to use energy.

I get the impression it's a bit like golfers changing their swing.

Substitute runner for golfer below :

"And therein lies the maddening rub: Change is like a drug that can produce wonderful, soaring highs, but also lonely, miserable lows. It’s intoxicating and irresistible, because within every golfer lies an insatiable appetite for improvement and, consequently, a deep-seeded desire to try something different, to find a new fix. (It’s likely the reason you read Golf Magazine.)"

Read more: http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/golf-swing-changes-are-almost-impossible-resist-brandel-chamblee#ixzz2mdZKPQRj

ecoli

Ceepo wrote: »

RE, Drills.

I think that the there is a place for them, not just for, technique, but also to aid "firing up" Muscles, on a Neurological level, as done properly, it can help muscles to engage in the proper sequence

Haven't got around to going through the article in depth yet (will come back to that) but I do agree that the proprioceptive and plyometric elements (muscle contractile force) of drills are definitely aspects which can yield huge improvements. I would be interested to get Raighne's views on this as they would be coming from a different approach with regards basic bio-mechanical movement patterns in runners which might actually argue in opposition to this

With regards muscle chain firing sequences I would imagine that individualized muscle retraining at a neurological level would be needed before incorporating them into drill movements (i.e if muscles are not firing in correct pattern they would need to be corrected before this pattern was firing properly during drill movements)

antomagoo

ecoli wrote: »

Funny enough I came across this article when i was looking for anecdotal evidence regarding Rodgers and attempts made to change his form

http://www.runnersworld.com/race-training/why-running-form-matters?page=single

I found this quote from the article very interesting

Magill says that, for longtime runners, "I assume you're not getting the same knee lift you used to get. Even for people who do tempo runs and reps, they rarely run faster than the race pace they're expecting to go. Let's say your shortest distance is 5K and you almost never regularly run faster than 5K race pace. Well, if that's 100 percent of what you're training your body to do, then it's a 100 percent effort for your body to lift your knees to the level you have to at 5K race pace. Your body's going to find it's easier to hit 90 percent of that max effort, and you're not going to get the knee lift you need to run as fast as you want, and that's just going to compound over time."

Timmaay

ecoli wrote: »

I would be in the same camp as you and I think that form drills are something which can be overlooked coming from outside an athletics club background however it could be argued that you see many of the athletes who religiously do drills are in orthotics or have some injury issues. Obviously there can be other factors which contribute but could be an argument for drills not being as crucial a factor when it comes to injury prevention through good form.

Agreed drills certainly aren't a magic injury prevention. Some athletes are just more injury prone than others, however alot of the time they will eventually string together a decent phase of training, ie 6/12months where they are injury free, attending most training, doing all their drills, and often they appear to make a long term recovery as such, once they can keep ontop of whatever previous injuries they had, using physio, foam rollers etc etc. The problematic athletes are the ones who come back from injury too enthusiastic, ramp up both the level of intensity and volume of running too quickly, while generally ignoring proper drills/warmdowns etc, and not really giving a cr%p about their running form ha!

I suppose they lack attention to details would be the way of describing it ha, Running and staying injury free is not at all an exact science, I guess my pessimistic opinion would be all you can do is try incorporate as much of this (running form/drills/warmups/warmdowns/stretching/physio etc), and hope you cover all the basics, and you manage to string together a decent injury free season.

The other thing about the above list is at the very least, its gives you the coach a great list of possible placebos to help keep an athlete motivated who is having a bad run of form and needs that bit of a lift ha, telling them they need to improve their form might only actually give them a very marginal benefit, but if it motivates them to go back out and try harder the next time, its better than leaving them stumped as to why they didn't achieve their target goal!

Timmaay

antomagoo wrote: »

I found this quote from the article very interesting

I would have thought that running quicker than your target race pace is common knowledge! Most certainly one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of middle distance, even for any of the athletes in the club who clearly are better at longer distances, by doing middle distance you will obviously be running quicker than say your 3k/5k/10k pace. Basically say if 9mins is your 3k target time, if you can go out and do a 1500m in say 4.10, a 4.30 1st 1500m in the 3k will feel like a walk in the park as such.

rom

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

The 10,000 hours rule is overrated. You can find plenty of examples that contradict it. Dennis Kimetto springs to mind as an extreme one.

But he was mad into cross fit before that :P

Murph_D

drquirky wrote: »

For my money Radcliffe is the greatest female marathoner of all time

I'd go further than that, no? Surely her 2:15 is the best ever gender-neutral marathon performance?

rom

murphd77 wrote: »

I'd go further than that, no? Surely her 2:15 is the best ever gender-neutral marathon performance?

It is the single best athletics performance full stop. Can't consider womens 3000m.

antomagoo

Timmaay wrote: »

I would have thought that running quicker than your target race pace is common knowledge! Most certainly one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of middle distance, even for any of the athletes in the club who clearly are better at longer distances, by doing middle distance you will obviously be running quicker than say your 3k/5k/10k pace. Basically say if 9mins is your 3k target time, if you can go out and do a 1500m in say 4.10, a 4.30 1st 1500m in the 3k will feel like a walk in the park as such.

Bearing in mind I wouldn't have as much experience as some of you guys here, but I have been led to believe that you run your intervals at target pace. That running intervals quicker than target pace week on week during a particular block of training will lead to burn out & not having the legs come race day.

Ceepo

antomagoo wrote: »

Bearing in mind I wouldn't have as much experience as some of you guys here, but I have been led to believe that you run your intervals at target pace. That running intervals quicker than target pace week on week during a particular block of training will lead to burn out & not having the legs come race day.

You are probably right and wrong in equally.

There are a high number of coaches out there, even within Ireland. They can't be all the same coaching the same program.

Every athlete is different and responds different to a various amount if training.

While there are certain" training principles" coaches interpret these different and will imply different training stimulus to suit each athlete.

Ceepo

antomagoo wrote: »

Bearing in mind I wouldn't have as much experience as some of you guys here, but I have been led to believe that you run your intervals at target pace. That running intervals quicker than target pace week on week during a particular block of training will lead to burn out & not having the legs come race day.

You are probably right and wrong in equally.

There are a high number of coaches out there, even within Ireland. They can't be all the same coaching the same program.

Every athlete is different and responds different to a various amount if training.

While there are certain" training principles" coaches interpret these different and will imply different training stimulus to suit each athlete.

RayCun

ecoli wrote: »

I get the point you are making here but the likes of Johnson started running before he was 12.

We're agreeing with each other By the time any of us saw Johnson run, he'd had years and years of running like that, so the costs of change would have been high. Wouldn't he have been a better runner if he had changed his running form at 13 or 14?

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

The 10,000 hours rule is overrated. You can find plenty of examples that contradict it. Dennis Kimetto springs to mind as an extreme one.

I wasn't really making an argument for the 10,000 hours rule. Just saying that if you have been doing something one way for a long time, it's very difficult to change to doing it another way.

Ceepo wrote: »

Radcliffe actually save energy running this way as she ran relaxed, so relaxed the her head bounced, if she was to stop her head from moving it would involve tensing up Neck and Shoulder muscles, which in effect would cause her to use energy.

That's an interesting idea! On the other hand, your head is very heavy. If it's swinging around the place on top of your neck, it's pulling your body around. So either your torso is going to move around a lot, or your core muscles have to work harder to keep it in place. It takes less energy for your neck and shoulder muscles to keep your head still (and that's what they're designed to do) than for your core muscles to stop that movement at the neck.

Timmaay wrote: »

The other thing about the above list is at the very least, its gives you the coach a great list of possible placebos to help keep an athlete motivated who is having a bad run of form and needs that bit of a lift ha, telling them they need to improve their form might only actually give them a very marginal benefit, but if it motivates them to go back out and try harder the next time, its better than leaving them stumped as to why they didn't achieve their target goal!

That's a good point. You see kids working away at training, and at any given time one of them might be improving rapidly while another is stuck on a plateau, and could get dispirited. Getting them to work on form can give them a focus outside race times/results.

ecoli

antomagoo wrote: »

Bearing in mind I wouldn't have as much experience as some of you guys here, but I have been led to believe that you run your intervals at target pace. That running intervals quicker than target pace week on week during a particular block of training will lead to burn out & not having the legs come race day.

Similar to Ceepo I would agree that both you and Timmaay are right here.

You should not train faster than prescribed target paces however most training programmes would include faster than race paces reps

Plans like Daniels include R(ep) paced intervals as well as many marathon plans including HMP and 5k/10k intervals. Similarly 1500m runners would do sessions at faster than target race pace (shorter under distance work like 400/800m) and slower longer reps (3k/5k work)

Similar strides are added to some programs for this purpose

If you are running reps for a particular purpose then by running them faster you are changing the dynamics of the session as such you need to adjust the length of reps and recovery accordingly. This is what Ceepo talks of with regards training stimulus

ecoli

RayCun wrote: »

We're agreeing with each other By the time any of us saw Johnson run, he'd had years and years of running like that, so the costs of change would have been high. Wouldn't he have been a better runner if he had changed his running form at 13 or 14?

Who said he didn't though? I would imagine that drills were a core part of his school training growing up (and most certainly by the time he got to Baylor as Clyde Hart was certainly an advocate of speed/form drills)

My point was there is a possible case for drills improving his form marginally but in no way perfecting it.

T runner

RayCun wrote: »

Radcliffe has put in thousands upon thousands of miles with her head bouncing around the place, that's what she's used to. ...... .

My take on it:
-Do a season or two of middle distance.
-All running must be relaxed.
-Even during an aerobic conditioning phase, emphasise strides/drills twice per week enough to noticeably affect your form on day to day aerobic running.
-Core work to support form.
-Use a HRM (or treadmill sometimes) for easy running to keep the effort even. A constant output makes it easier for your body to lock into the most efficient cadence. Changing effort means changing stride length and cadence and slower efficiency adaptions.
-Train often at/around race paces/efforts all year round. You get efficient at the paces you train at. Zatopec might have been a great and tough competitor. The efficiencies he gained at race pace from those massive sessions around race paces may have been a key for his primary events.
- Whatever form you run with, over days, months and years...you become efficient at that form. A complete abrupt change of form is only potentially efficient. If your form evolves the efficiency gained over years of running remains. i.e don't abruptly force major changes to your running form. Let strides, or middle distance running evolve your form. The relaxed running at all times principle should ensure an evolution.
-People get more efficient as the years progress. The more miles you run the more efficient you get.

Im not knowledgeable on the middle distance training, have only done a bit (but will do a lot more early spring for autumn marathon). But what Timaay says and the evidence of huge chunks falling off marathon times for the likes of Bazman and others seem to prove this.

RayCun

Do a season of middle distance training to improve form before marathon training
Do 4 months of low heartrate long distance running to improve aerobic development before marathon training
I've only two legs

T runner

RayCun wrote: »

Do a season of middle distance training to improve form before marathon training
Do 4 months of low heartrate long distance running to improve aerobic development before marathon training
I've only two legs

Plenty of time before next October!

4 months easy to sub-tempo high mileage stuff, making sure running efficiency is worked on and good, and aerobic fitness and mileage reaches new levels. Then middle distance, then more high mileage stuff at all paces with good efficency, then marathon specific.

If you've a marathon in Spring, start the middle distance training 3 weeks after and you'll have it for an autumn marathon.