Ed Whitlock style training

I ran Ed's training routine in 2006-7, at least a modified version. I gradually got the point where I was able to run 2 hours/day for 6-7 days/week. I did no speed work and raced frequently from 5K to the marathon. I wanted to get to 3 hours/day and tried to gradually increase the length of my runs by about 10 mins./day. Fatigue was a problem for me beyond 2 hours.

Then, I decided to try two 90 min. runs/day, one early in the AM and one late in the evening in order to allow for max recovery time. I got injured with PF. I'm not sure that the injury was related to the mileage, who knows what causes PF?

I often ran the 2 hour runs indoors when the weather was bad. I figured 2 hours was 2 hours and the body doesnt know nor care where the run takes place. The iPod really helped a lot. I had it loaded up with my favorite music. Pace was 10 min./mile or slower; I was just trying to put in the time.

I frequently raced on the weekends, usually 5Ks but I did run 15 marathons in 2007, qualifying for Boston 13 times. I was 63 then and had best times of 19:44, 43:50 and 3:26 which I was very happy with. It will absolutely get you into great shape but it can be a grind if you dont have some music along.

The slow pace is key; you cant really go much beyond 70% max. HR and expect to do these long runs consistently, day after day. I still think its the best system for me and I'm trying to get back to it while currently running through my PF problems. In retrospect, I think I should have tried to very gradually increase the 2 hour run rather than do the two 90 min. runs/day. It didnt take long for me to get to 2 hours but beyond that is a real challenge. Initially, I think Ed did run 2 hours/day for a while before eventually stepping up to 3 but I dont know any details.

From what I understand, Ed ran his 2:54 at age 72 while running about 2 hours a day, but then increased to 3 hrs a day and ran into a lot of injury problems. 2 hours a day is a heck of a lot of running, I can't imagine doing more than that consistently.

Dan Moriarity wrote:

From what I understand, Ed ran his 2:54 at age 72 while running about 2 hours a day, but then increased to 3 hrs a day and ran into a lot of injury problems. 2 hours a day is a heck of a lot of running, I can't imagine doing more than that consistently.

Very interesting. Years ago, I read an article by an exercise physiologist which found that the optimum run was 2 hours. Beyond that, you get some get some rapidly declining benefits. I dont think injuries were discussed. I cant remember the article; wish I'd saved it.

FIFTEEN marathons?

Wow.

Larry Macon has got me beat, by far:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1430551070?bclid=1126074425&bctid=26423738001

Caveman wrote:

I frequently raced on the weekends, usually 5Ks but I did run 15 marathons in 2007, qualifying for Boston 13 times. I was 63 then and had best times of 19:44, 43:50 and 3:26 which I was very happy with. It will absolutely get you into great shape but it can be a grind if you dont have some music along.

I am impressed.

I found when running a lot of marathons (7 was the most in one year), that 2 hours a day was plenty. I usually averaged slightly less than 100 minutes a day running 98 miles a week. Anything more then that wore me out. Of course that was also a function of pace and the type of sessions. I think that 100 to 120 minutes a day is plenty when training for a best time in the marathon, and probably less would be sufficient.

...and if focus is on 8-10K?

From what I understand, Ed ran his 2:54 at age 72 while running about 2 hours a day, but then increased to 3 hrs a day and ran into a lot of injury problems. 2 hours a day is a heck of a lot of running, I can\'t imagine doing more than that consistently.

I ran my \"2:54\" at age 73 in 2004 off an extended base of daily 3 hour slow runs. I had periods of shorter runs after that but still continued to have a base of 3 hour runs after that before subsequent marathons until my right knee gave trouble in 2007. I had essentially the same problem with my left knee in 2001. While the pain is running related, the basic problem is age related, osteo arthritis which I have to minor degree in other joints e.g. fingers, wrists. In that I recovered from my left knee problem in 2001 I have reasonable hope that with patience I can get going again.

I started extending the duration of my daily runs in my mid 60\'s gradually increasing to the occasional 3 hour run by the time I was 70. I always try to increase \"mileage\" slowly and not make sudden leaps.

I wouldn\'t recommend my training program to someone else but it seems to work for me. It might work for someone else.

Ed

Thanks Ed. I often wondered how long it took you to get from 2 to 3 hours/day. I took me about 2 years to get to 2 hours starting from 1 hour/day. After a few months of 2 hours/day, I got too aggressive and tried to zoom up to 3 hours ASAP while still racing. I got injured. The longer the run, the more important patience is. I'm going to give your program another shot and I hope to be able to more prudent this time. An injury can undo a lot of good work. Thanks again!

A Pied wrote:

...and if focus is on 8-10K?

All my distances improved dramatically while running 2 hours/day. The only taper I did was to take a day off before a 5K or 10K or an unimportant marathon. I tapered a lot more for a marathon where I was trying to run a fast time (on a fast course). Usually I cut the mileage in half for an important one but mostly I treated marathons as long tempo runs and didnt worry too much about time. I dont think I missed much by doing no speed work. After running 100 miles/week for about 4 months, Peter Snell ran a 4:01 mile with no speed work and he was not a naturally fast guy. You might be able to shave a few seconds off your 10K time but you risk injury especially as you get older. Personally, I'll stick to the long slow stuff, a la Ed Whitlock, with some 5K-10Ks thrown in to take care of whatever little anaerobic work I might need for a good marathon. Just my 2 cents.....

Caveman, interesting to see your best 5k was much better than your 10k and marathon best off that program. Are you naturally more a middle-distance type?

mopak wrote:

Caveman, interesting to see your best 5k was much better than your 10k and marathon best off that program. Are you naturally more a middle-distance type?

It would seem that the 5K and 10K/marathon times are a little out of kilter. However, I only ran 1 10K that year and it was on a very hilly course. I ran a ton of 5Ks. Still, my 5K times predict faster marathons than I have actually run according to a program on marathonguide.com. My limited talents may lie more in the 5K than the longer distances but I run them all and take what comes. Also of course its a lot easier to recover from a 5K than a marathon so if you run lots of marathons, your condition will be dragged down and times will suffer. If you're training 2 hours/day, a 20 min. 5K is easy to recover from but a "fast" marathon is still a grind especially if you run them on consecutive weekends.

Caveman wrote:

Fatigue was a problem for me beyond 2 hours.

Can you elaborate on things you tried to get beyond 2 h, e.g. eating while running, sleeping more, changing running surface, etc.? Thanks.

Great stuff here. Ed, I wonder if you realise what you've done. Of all the great running performances, running 2:54 at age 73 is truly amazing. And the only one to break 3 hrs over 70. And not just break it, smash it! And how did you do it? With long slow distance. Sitting at the top Ed, all alone at #1. The King.

Ed, I don't know if you've tuned in to the "over 50" or "bodybuilding" threads or not, but I'd sure appreciate your thoughts on maintaining upper body strength as you age. From the articles and pics I know you're definitely a marathon-type physique, so do you grapple w/ body strength for those occasional tough chores? Does your running schedule preclude any weight work? My apologies if you've addressed this in other threads; I'm just getting rather dismayed at my rapid decline in muscle mass coupled w/ slow times as I approach sixty. Thanks.

Warming down wrote:

Caveman wrote:

Fatigue was a problem for me beyond 2 hours.

Can you elaborate on things you tried to get beyond 2 h, e.g. eating while running, sleeping more, changing running surface, etc.? Thanks.

Yep, I tried almost all of those. I even went to double workouts, running two 90 min. runs ideally separated by 12 hours. I gradually got so tired, I could hardly walk. I think the problem was that I tried to move up in time too quickly. In other words, I got too greedy.

Ed has the right idea. Be conservative about increasing running time. I'm not really sure if the increase caused my PF (I'm not sure that anyone really knows what causes it). However, my form probably suffered in the later stages of a longer run which may have caused the injury. The serious runner is always running on the edge hoping to avoid injury while still getting in the training. Its a fine line.

On eating while running, I havent really tried that yet although in training, I sometimes take a swig of a sports drink every few miles. I cant drink nor eat anything during a race; its guaranteed that I'll throw it up. I cant even handle plain water. I've never had any symptoms of dehydration and seem to do fine without any liquids.

So, I think running 2 hours/day is very doable but I should have taken more rest days and maybe slowed the pace a little. Now, I'm watching the heart rate monitor more closely and trying to keep my HR under about 120 which is about 70% of max. for me. In Fitness and in Health by Dr. Phil Maffetone has some good info. on heart rate training. I was able to run 3 hours recently by following his guidelines and felt OK afterwards. I havent run that far in over 1 year due to the PF injury. If I slow down, I can get a lot more done in training.

Although seemingly hated and despised by letsrunners, Galloway in Running Until you're 100, has some good tips on getting through long runs in good shape.

Caveman wrote:

I'm not really sure if the increase caused my PF (I'm not sure that anyone really knows what causes it).

Bad Shoes.

monson wrote:

Ed, I don't know if you've tuned in to the "over 50" or "bodybuilding" threads or not, but I'd sure appreciate your thoughts on maintaining upper body strength as you age. From the articles and pics I know you're definitely a marathon-type physique, so do you grapple w/ body strength for those occasional tough chores? Does your running schedule preclude any weight work? My apologies if you've addressed this in other threads; I'm just getting rather dismayed at my rapid decline in muscle mass coupled w/ slow times as I approach sixty. Thanks.

I don't do any weight training. It might be a good idea but I have seemingly no interest in doing it. I have not noticed any significant decrease in upper body strength but I am sure there has been some. Gardening and snow shovelling gives some training I suppose.

On the question of increasing the length of runs without undue fatigue I think its a case of being patient and gradually increasing the length of runs ie gradual adaptation.

Ed, what sort of training were you doing in your younger masters years? Did you move toward longer slower runs as you aged or was that always the basic theme of your training?