Marathon Training Volume

Alaska Mike · Mar 4, 2011

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by Yo Sake <a href="/forum/thread/72847/wednesday-mar-2-workouts#post_1986784"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a> Thanks. Only faster marathoners, like you, can actually run a longer time than what it will take to finish the goal marathon during a buildup. Speaking of the 'mental thing', I am debating to run how many 20miles if any I run during this training cycle. I havent' run any 20's yet. Because of the much higher mileages I am running, plus I have at least 12-18miles for two days leading up to the long run, my long run starts as if I already run at least 5miles or so. So I am not sure if there is any training value to do the magic '20'. This is basically the idea behind why Hansons' training (in the simplest term) doesn't have you run more than 16miles. I am putting equal value to the three key workouts - cruise interval, MP run, and long run - each week, so 20 is not necessary in the grand scheme of thing, but I haven't even run 3hrs yet. Expecting 3:40-45 marathon, maybe there is a value physcially to put 3hrs run? your thoughts?
</div>
</div>
 
Pulled this out of the daily bread thread because I think its an interesting discussion and one I've been putting some thought into during this training cycle.
 
It's interesting to me because, relative to other runners who finish around me, I suspect I have much lower volume. Looking at my log from last year, my long week was 72 miles, I had two other weeks that were 55 miles, and every other week was 45 miles or less. I hear all the time about guys doing 80, 90 and 100+ mile weeks. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I can succeed with lower mileage because I have so much natural talent. Rather I suspect that once you get past a certain point in mileage, you really are facing a marginal gain and significantly increasing your chance of injury or overtraining. Now it may be that to reach a certain performance level you really need to push the limit and live on that knife edge, but I think for most folks that additional distance, especially long slow distance, really isn't going to add all that much.
 
Getting back to your question, I suspect you would be able to meet your goals in the marathon without running a 20 miler. You've run marathons before, there isn't anything magical about the 26.2 distance for you. Your objective is to get to the starting line with as much speed and as healthy as possible. You've committed yourself to this program, I'd stick with what they recommend and see what it gets you. Go off the reservation now and you'll never know whether it was the program that didn't work for you or your freelancing.
 
And as I'm sure my coach would tell you, don't do what I do! I think I often succeed in spite of my intentions, not because of them. One reason I use a coach even after all these years of running is because I need someone to tell me when I'm being stupid - it happens a lot. I need that hand on my shoulder, pulling me back and telling me that I've done enough and to trust in her plan.
 
I like the idea that you can build in the effort from the past couple of days into the current days workout. My coach has me doing something similar. I'm up north again so anything more than 2 hours on the treadmill would be insane. She has me doing 2 hours on Monday and another 2 hours on Tuesday, so I'm going into the 2nd day on tired legs.
 
Mike

Yo Sake · Mar 4, 2011

Thanks, Mike, for your input. I was just wondering if you saw my question at the end of the daily thread. 
 
Let me first clarify - I don't have "the training plan" suggested by Hanson's coaching service. I shared the training I followed in the past and my goals and asked for his suggestions. In the plan I shared with him, there were three 20milers. His comment in regard to the long runs was 'keep it about the same' when I asked about Hansen's 16mile cap vs. 20miles or longer run, while he was saying 'there were no magic numbers, and you have to keep the good balance between the weekly mileages and intensity'. His #1 suggestion was higher weekly mileage (50-60) with equal emphasis on cruise interval, MP run, and long run, which I am doing really well with. Agasint his suggestions, however, I am doing both cruise intervals and MP runs at much faster paces than suggested. Just my nature, I guess, not be able to hold back. 
 
I am really hoping and excited to see how doing long run with tired legs would help on the race day. For example, this week I've done 11miles including 9miles at MP-15sec on Thursday, 7miles easy on Friday, then tomorrow is probably 17miles at about MP+45sec. 
 
So in short. I am still not sure what to do with longer run than 19miles (the longest to date). My hip muscles are noticeably getting tighter so it may be smart not to increase the long run any longer after all.

Thor · Mar 4, 2011

Now that just sucks. Just typed a really long response with lots of thoughtful talking points and ideas... and I lost it. Fuck.

Alaska Mike · Mar 5, 2011

Yoshiko,
 
Sounds like you got good advice. You're almost six weeks out from Boston, not yet to the taper but its important to listen to your body right now. Really, having a long run of 19 miles verses 22 or 24 (or 26) will be negligible come race day. If you think that pushing beyond 19 may be unwise right now, you're probably right. You know you can do the distance, that's not the question for you. Getting to the starting line healthy will be the most important goal of your training for the next six weeks. It's advice I had to take myself today. Better to not do that extra push that may increase race day performance by 1% but increases your chance of injury by 5% or 10%.
 
Your comment about doing cruise intervals and MP runs at a faster pace is an interesting one. I struggle with the desire to do things faster than my coach tells me to. One point she makes is that we're trying to get my body to adapt to certain stresses. By running faster than what she wants, I may be stressing the body in a different way and may not end up achieving the desired result. Faster isn't always better. Just something to consider, and like I said, it's something I struggle with. 

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by Thor <a href="/forum/thread/72879/marathon-training-volume#post_1987058"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a> Now that just sucks. Just typed a really long response with lots of thoughtful talking points and ideas... and I lost it. Fuck.
</div>
</div>
So that means we're don't even get the cliff notes version? <img alt="sad.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/sad.gif">
 
Mike

Thor · Mar 5, 2011

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by Alaska Mike <a href="/forum/thread/72879/marathon-training-volume#post_1987108"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-bottom:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-right:0px solid;"></a> 
So that means we're don't even get the cliff notes version? <img alt="sad.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/sad.gif">
</div>
</div>
 Oh you will. Just ran out of time last night. Hence the cussing.

Thor · Mar 5, 2011

<div class="quote-container">
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by Alaska Mike <a href="/forum/thread/72879/marathon-training-volume#post_1987108"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-bottom:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-right:0px solid;"></a>
 
Yoshiko,
 
Sounds like you got good advice. You're almost six weeks out from Boston, not yet to the taper but its important to listen to your body right now. Really, having a long run of 19 miles verses 22 or 24 (or 26) will be negligible come race day. If you think that pushing beyond 19 may be unwise right now, you're probably right. You know you can do the distance, that's not the question for you. Getting to the starting line healthy will be the most important goal of your training for the next six weeks. It's advice I had to take myself today. Better to not do that extra push that may increase race day performance by 1% but increases your chance of injury by 5% or 10%. 
</div>
</div>
I agree with all of this for Yoshiko. Most of us know what to do even though we come up asking for input or advice on this or that. Trust your instincts, because they usually will not lead you astray, especially when it comes to injury.
 
And I completely agree that in the grand scheme there is no difference between a long run of 19 miles and one of 22, 24, or even 26. Once you get beyond 2:45 to 3:00 hours you are entering a period of diminshed returns in many more ways than the surface even reveals. Think about the speed work session the next week. Doing what I call a Stupid Long Run (my term and name aptly) will just leave you more tired for the real work to be done. Which could cause injury, dead leg, etc. 

<div class="quote-container">
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by Alaska Mike <a href="/forum/thread/72879/marathon-training-volume#post_1987108"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-bottom:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-right:0px solid;"></a> Your comment about doing cruise intervals and MP runs at a faster pace is an interesting one. I struggle with the desire to do things faster than my coach tells me to. One point she makes is that we're trying to get my body to adapt to certain stresses. By running faster than what she wants, I may be stressing the body in a different way and may not end up achieving the desired result. Faster isn't always better. Just something to consider, and like I said, it's something I struggle with. 
</div>
</div>
 
And I agree with this, too. To a point. But to several different points.
 
Firstly, I think it is okay, on a small level, for Yoshi to do those slightly faster than MP (as long as they are only slightly faster) than it is for Mike. And it's because Mike, according to my eyes, is in a completely different boat in both training AND ability. And both together make a difference. Mike is doing all the proper training, so honestly, doing those other runs at a faster pace will just take away from the other just as important workouts, whereas for Yoshi those ARE the important workouts.
 
In my respone to your questions in another daily bread thread (Thursday or Friday, I think), when you asked about what my methodology was in the workouts I do, I mentioned that I am working on Running Economy at MP, which is just a fancy way to say that you want to train to become more efficient when running at marathon pace. This is exactly the point to address, Mike, what your coach mentioned in that the body has to adapt to certain stresses, and if you run too fast or too slow, the stresses are different. And so the results may not be what you think. Sure, you have to run fast in order to, well, run fast. But you have to do it efficiently. And the human body is among the most adaptable devices out there. So if you want to run a certain pace for a marathon, you have to a) be strong relative to that pacing and b) trained to the point that the body is adapted around it.
 
My other reply (the one that got lost... stupid site!) basically talked about why Mike, you, it is okay for you to do long runs of 26 miles. And you're right... the guys you're competing with are doing just that. And you're right, the guys you're competing with are indeed running 75-100 mile weeks. But this is not to say that I should start running 100 mile weeks in order to get faster, or even that Yoshi should. You are faster. You cover more ground. Your body can withstand it. Any body has to adapt to that. It is the next level. Or maybe the level after the next. For me and Yoshi and others. But not for a guy like Mike who is looking to go deep under 2:40. You need the strength that can be earned. If I did that, I would be perpetually tired with dead legs and my speed workouts would be crap. Could I get to that next level? Maybe. Probably. But I'd have to train differently. And I'm not willing to do that. But the point is that Mike needs to train differently than me or Yoshi, and others too.

Yo Sake · Mar 5, 2011

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by Alaska Mike <a href="/forum/thread/72879/marathon-training-volume#post_1987108"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-right:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-bottom:0px solid;"></a> 
Your comment about doing cruise intervals and MP runs at a faster pace is an interesting one. I struggle with the desire to do things faster than my coach tells me to. One point she makes is that we're trying to get my body to adapt to certain stresses. By running faster than what she wants, I may be stressing the body in a different way and may not end up achieving the desired result. Faster isn't always better. Just something to consider, and like I said, it's something I struggle with. 

 
</div>
</div>
 
Mike,
What underlined is so true. I went back and forth with Hanson's coaching about the suggested paces for the cruise interval pace and for the MP pace seeming to be too slow, based on the schedule I followed in the past. His comment was, "Marathon training isn't so much about really tough workouts. It's about developing all the physiological and metabolic adaptations that you can. A 10 mile tempo run at marathon pace may not be that tough to you, but when you combine it with all the other work that you are doing it is demanding. Marathon training is grinding and generally tiring- just like the race." He strongly suggested I don't run the cruise interval any faster tahn the half pace (7:40) and MP run at the exact MP (8:22) to make it to the finish line at 3:40. Yet, my ego, or whatever, can't follow the direction and always end up 'let's see what I can and how I feel'. With the Boston in 6wks, I think faster-than-suggested-runs are catching up on me. I am very tired. I really need to dial in what 8;20-22 feels like. Honestly, haven't run much AT ALL at the pace... all my MP runs have been at 8:-8:05ish.

Yo Sake · Mar 5, 2011

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by Thor <a href="/forum/thread/72879/marathon-training-volume#post_1987116"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-right:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-bottom:0px solid;"></a> 
And I agree with this, too. To a point. But to several different points.
 
Firstly, I think it is okay, on a small level, for Yoshi to do those slightly faster than MP (as long as they are only slightly faster) than it is for Mike. And it's because Mike, according to my eyes, is in a completely different boat in both training AND ability. And both together make a difference. Mike is doing all the proper training, so honestly, doing those other runs at a faster pace will just take away from the other just as important workouts, whereas for Yoshi those ARE the important workouts.
 
In my respone to your questions in another daily bread thread (Thursday or Friday, I think), when you asked about what my methodology was in the workouts I do, I mentioned that I am working on Running Economy at MP, which is just a fancy way to say that you want to train to become more efficient when running at marathon pace. This is exactly the point to address, Mike, what your coach mentioned in that the body has to adapt to certain stresses, and if you run too fast or too slow, the stresses are different. And so the results may not be what you think. Sure, you have to run fast in order to, well, run fast. But you have to do it efficiently. And the human body is among the most adaptable devices out there. So if you want to run a certain pace for a marathon, you have to a) be strong relative to that pacing and b) trained to the point that the body is adapted around it.
 
My other reply (the one that got lost... stupid site!) basically talked about why Mike, you, it is okay for you to do long runs of 26 miles. And you're right... the guys you're competing with are doing just that. And you're right, the guys you're competing with are indeed running 75-100 mile weeks. But this is not to say that I should start running 100 mile weeks in order to get faster, or even that Yoshi should. You are faster. You cover more ground. Your body can withstand it. Any body has to adapt to that. It is the next level. Or maybe the level after the next. For me and Yoshi and others. But not for a guy like Mike who is looking to go deep under 2:40. You need the strength that can be earned. If I did that, I would be perpetually tired with dead legs and my speed workouts would be crap. Could I get to that next level? Maybe. Probably. But I'd have to train differently. And I'm not willing to do that. But the point is that Mike needs to train differently than me or Yoshi, and others too.
</div>
</div>
 
So, true, 2:40 marathon is a TOTALLY different animal than much slower marathon (i.e. my goal time of 3:40). And at Mike's level, 15sec faster than MP may push the effort to above LT level, while 15sec. at my level probably is not that significant in terms of affecting certain/different system. 
 
Mike & Thor are so experienced and talented runners and I learn a lot from them. But again, they are in a totally different league from me. It would be so beneficial for me personally if there are more 3:30ish marathoners on this forum who would share their experiences/knowledges. If that is YOU, com'on out and join the discussion. <img alt="wave.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/wave.gif" style="width:25px;height:15px;">

donskiman · Mar 6, 2011

I'm in that 3:30 range, but I hesitate to offer any advice at this point since your training is almost over. Fiddling with training at the end of a cycle is not the best thing. Stick with the plan you're using. If it doesn't produce the results, change it up for the next one. Personally, when I have a goal marathon I start training 6-8 months out.
 
I'm a big fan of high volume. In order to to that volume you'd have to slow down on some of your runs, and/or run doubles. Although I haven't done any super long runs in my training so far, I think there is an unnecessary fear that pushing past 20, 25, or even 30 will have a negative effect. I think I've mentioned how one of the local ultra runners won a 100 mile race and 2 weeks later won a local marathon in course record time - about 2:40 or so. During his build for the 100 miler he exceeded 250 miles/week a couple times and was over 200 numerous times. His long runs were typically in the 40-60 mile range. He recently ran a 100 miler in 13:18 - or just under 8 min. miles.
 
Anyway, there are lots of ultra guys in my area and I don't see that doing super long runs is hurting them. If anything it makes running 26.2 seem rather easy.
 
From things I've read, lots of guys used to push high volume years ago when the qualifying standards for Boston were tougher than they are now. It's almost certain the guys at the pointy end are training that way. If it works for them, why wouldn't it work for others?

Yo Sake · Mar 8, 2011

Don, thanks for your input. Having increased the weekly volume during this training cycle from my past training (~50), I believe there are a lot to say about the pure volume needed to be ready for 26.2. Personally, I don't see myself being able to run more than 60miles week in week out, plus dedicate a longer block of time (i.e. 4-6months) to running because of other interest (I still want to enjoy triathlon races). It all comes down to priority and what you want to accomplish. 
BTW, I strongly think you can run much faster marathon than 3:30. Now.

Alaska Mike · Mar 9, 2011

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by Donskiman <a href="/forum/thread/72879/marathon-training-volume#post_1987269"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div class="quote-block">From things I've read, lots of guys used to push high volume years ago when the qualifying standards for Boston were tougher than they are now. It's almost certain the guys at the pointy end are training that way. If it works for them, why wouldn't it work for others?</div>
</div>
 
Because the guys at the point end really are different from most people! The elite runners of today and the folks who qualified for Boston before it became a spectacle are examples of self-selecting groups. If you lack the genes, the talent, the physique, the desire and the luck to be able to run 100+ miles per week, you drop out and either don't run or run less. I think its fallacy to assume that just because the elites can train that way and are successful with it that everyone else should replicate that.
 
I've got a modicum of talent and my 94 mile week really wore me out. Now, granted, I could probably sustain 100+ mile weeks if I worked my way up to it slowly, but I'm willing to bet that most folks would sustain significantly higher injury rates if they tried that training program.
 
200 miles per week at an average pace of 7:30 min/mi equates to 25 hours a week. And that just counts your running, not everything associated with it! Most people simply can't dedicate that kind of time to their running, the rest of life gets in the way.
 
And I'll repeat something I said above: that while I do agree that high mileage plans do bring added benefits, I just don't think the added risk is worth the benefit. If I was trying to go from 3rd place in my Boston AG to 1st place, then maybe it makes sense. But for most folks I think think a lower mileage, lower risk approach makes sense.
 
BTW, I hope you don't take this as an attack on you or your thoughts Don. I enjoy a good debate and I like having my ideas and assumptions challenged. I respect your opinion and your abilities tremendously, I'm just not going to agree with everything. Thank you for providing your input and I apologize if my response comes across the wrong way.
 
Mike

donskiman · Mar 9, 2011

Yoshi, if you want to do other things, then you have to compromise you potential as a runner. It's OK. When a person does a spring marathon I think it's easy to devote 6 months to training for it. Tri season for many people ends by October. I've gone as far as only running for an entire year. I find it much easier to regain fitness on the bike and swim.
 
Mike, I'm not offended. I just happen to think many people can run way more than they do. I don't think I'm exceptional and it wasn't that hard for me to run over 3000 miles at age 54. I don't think it's the mileage that causes injuries as much as doing the mileage with too much intensity. For example - in my most recent HM back in December I ran 1:33:23, beating my old PR by over four and a half minutes. In the month before that race I ran about 320 or so miles. Only 4 of those mile were done at race pace or faster. For me, I've found that when running higher volumes a little bit of speedwork goes a long way. High intensity is more difficult to recover from and that jeopardizes other training. I save my really hard efforts for racing. There are no awards for running fast during training.
 
I got this idea from readin about Ed Whitlock. He was running about 3 hours a day at an easy pace, and went on to run a sub 3 hour marathon when he was in his early 70s. At the training pace he ran he was running around 100 or so miles per week - in his 70s!
 
So by keeping the pace easy it's very possible to run much higher volume. It takes more time though. Both in weekly time and overall length of time it takes to realize the benefits of higher volume.
 
Anyway, my theory is of no use for Yoshiko at this point - or for anyone else running a marathon in the near future.
 
BTW, McMillan says I should be able to run a marathon at about 3:16. That seems within range, provided I did the necessary training. Since I now only need to run 3:45 for a BQ, that would put me in the first round of registration. If I can talk my wife into a marathon I may have a go at it.

Thor · Mar 9, 2011

The point about the high mileage Mike is making -- and that I've pointed out -- is that we agree that high mileage does indeed make you stronger and your results will likely follow. But not every body (words chosen carefully) can handle the volume, even at easy pace. And most everybody here is not at the point with their base that they can layer on this high mileage without injury, burnout, etc. It takes years of running at a good level to build the ancillary muscles to the point that they can support the body through that kind of running. And only then can you take advantage of it.
 
As for me, I think I *am* at the point where I could pile on crazy volume, and I bet it would indeed serve me well as long as I maintained my leg turnover such that not all of those miles were plodding miles. But my goals are many, and they are varied. So as you mentioned, I compromise one of my goals of running Sub-3 so that I can accommodate other goals, such as lifestyle ones. And I do that consciously because, well, running isn't (to me) just about going Sub-3.
 
So yes, high volume is good... if you are to the point where you can take it, and if you introduce it the smart way such that the miles aren't all "junk" miles. There is no single linear approach that works best. Every body is different just as everybody is unique. And I agree that every body can handle far more miles than they are doing now. Their minds shut them down prematurely to what they could otherwise do. And usually this is okay because of competing goals, which is, well, living life with multi-dimensions.

Thor · Mar 9, 2011

BTW, I ran neck and neck with Ed Whitlock several years ago at the Toronto Waterfront Marathon. I had a very good race that year. He had an even better race by finishing a few minutes ahead of me. He was just over sub-3.
 
I heard him being interviewed, and he said that he hates running. He only runs because of how organizations ask him to run their marathon, and now he's to the point where he feels obligated. To me it sounded as if this guy was severely burnt out. He needed more fun in his running.

Marathon Training Volume

Top Contributors this Month