Marathon Training On Low Volume???

Crank,Agreed, if you put 120 as the center of the curve and use 10 as the SD. The question that obviously arises is a) what proof do you use to show 120 is the mean and b) what proof do you have that 10 mpw is the SD?

Crank Yanker wrote:

This is not a matter of belief. Making the logically analagous claim that you "believe" that the sun rises in the east is noncontributory.

In fact, because we don't know how much the three S.A. marathoners trained at their peak...

Exactly. We don't know how much these three trained at their peak or at any other time in their careers with the exception of what is reported in this study. Likewise we also don't know the intimate training details of most elites. So, when I say I believe that most elites run high mileage, it is just that - a belief. I don't factually know the training details of elites, hence the use of the term "I believe".. Furthermore I am unaware of anyone who does know the complete training details of the majority of elites. If you know of a credible source that has intricately examined the training of many or most of the elites and that that reference factually shows that elites all train with high mileage I will gladly rephrase my statement to something along the lines of "I know that all/most elites train with high mileage".

Perhaps I misread the original question. Did the original poster asked if any elites had ever trained using higher mileage and then dropped to lower mileage? Or did he ask if any elites out there train 50 mpw, with no reference to their entire training history?

Regards,

Richard_ wrote:

GILT,

"More recently, researchers in South Africa tested 20 of the fastest runners in that country (1). To be included in this study, an athlete needed to have run a mile in under 4 minutes, 3k faster than 8:20 minutes, or a 5k in less than 14 minutes. Even though the qualifying standards to be included in the study were set for distances of 5k and below, some very distinguished long distance runners made the grade. Former world half-marathon record holder Matthews Temane, Berlin Marathon winner Xolile Yawa, 2:08 marathoner Zithuele Sinqe, and New York Marathon champion William Mtolo all participated in this research(2). All of the runners in this study were training intensely and competing actively. One of the more significant findings was that the average weekly training mileage for the runners was just 50-60 miles."

http://www.powerrunning.com/Results.htm

Citation please. I could not find this at your website. You need better navigation or a more direct link to the page on which the quote comes from since I know you are good about listing the citations.

You can run well off lower mileage and depending on who you are and your circumstances you may have to.

In 96 a masters woman I coached ran 2:46 in her first marathon to qualify for the Olympic trials. She only did 55 miles per-week. I would have liked more but she could not run more than that without breaking down.

Her easy days were real easy, just 4 to 6 miles very easy. However her three hard days per-week were very hard. Five weeks before she did a 24 mile run in about 2:46 on a hilly course. 12 days before she did 10 x 1 mile (1 minute rest) with the first six at goal marathon pace (6:20) and the last 4 progressively faster (6:10-6:00-5:50-5:40).

Luv,

Click on the link in my post (same as the link where you quoted me) and go to the bottom of the page. Both citations are there.

Just in case:

http://www.powerrunning.com/Results.htm

The quote is in the middle of the page, citations are at the bottom.

REFish wrote:

In 96 a masters woman I coached ran 2:46 in her first marathon to qualify for the Olympic trials. She only did 55 miles per-week. I would have liked more but she could not run more than that without breaking down.

So in essence, you're supporting the idea that she would have likely run quite a bit faster had she been able to handle more mileage. We know people can run "well" on limited mileage, since innate ability levels vary widely among runners. What the original poster was presumably after was evidence of a marathoner who could and did put in high mileage and gave it an honest trial, but ultimately raced well off an extended period of training that included at most 50 miles of running per week.

Here's a secnario I can envision that has surely been played out: College runner goes from 60 miles a week at graduation right to 100 or 120. He has a strong will along with the durability to not get injured, so keeps bashing himself despite increasing levels of fatigue. He is hesitant to taper properly and despite college PRs of 14:20 and 30:00, runs a series of 2:20 - 2:35 shitathons. Finally, sick and tired of being tired, he puts in only 60-70 miles a week for several months and, rested for the first time in a year or two, "magically" pops a 2:22. He and others rush to attribute the performance jump to a regimen of 60 and 70 mile weeks rather than taking in the big picture. This runner would not qualify as someone who has really thrived on low mileage, but rather as one still in sreach of balance and proper timing.

I agree and have seen that happen many times where the so called low mileage was actually finally getting some rest in order to benefit from all the hard training.

Great discussion everyone.

My original post queries the use of 50mpw MOST OF THE TIME for Marathon success.

I often wonder if we automatically believe that Marathon training is all about maximizing volume of training.

Didn't Jack Foster (2:11) often run 3x a week, one 20 miler and 2 x 15 milers?

I know a guy who ran a few 2:36s and some great ultras off 50-60mpw.

I want to run a Marathon in 2:40 ish. I think I'm in about 76min Half shape right now. But, I really believe that I should stick to 50mpw for various reasons.

So, do I live in fantasy land? There are abviously some very good low volume Marathon pwrformances out there.

Keep it coming, please.

Cheers

GILT

Crank,

Quoting from the study:

"Despite comprising only 20% of the competitive distance runners in this country, black South Africans dominate all distances, usually filling equal to or greater than 90% of the top finishing positions in races from 5 to 56 km...

In contrast, white runners dominate the shorter middle-distance running events in this country. Thus, 42 of the 50 fastest 800-m and 41 of the fastest 50 fastest 1650-m (1-mile) times have been recorded by white South African runners...

Accordingly, the aim of this study was to further examine the possible mechanism(s) underlying an apparently superior running performance of black South African runners in races greater than 5km...

To ensure only the very best white and black South African athletes were included in these investigations...

Eleven black and 9 white runners qualified for the study on the basis of the personal best time achieved within the competitive season during which they were studied...

Among the black athletes studied were four of the five all-time best performers over 10,000m in South Africa, the South African champions over 5,000 and 10,000m and the world's two fastest performers in the half-marathon at that time.

...the athletes...were interviewed to obtain details of their training regimens. Each athlete's weekly training program was analyzed for the 8 weeks before each important race. Particular attention was paid to daily distance run, running speed, total running time per day, hill training, sprinting, gymnasium exercise, and details of fartlek, interval, and other speedwork sessions."

According to table 2 in the paper, the black athletes averaged about 92 km per week of running (SD of about 20km per week) while the white athletes averaged about 84km per week per week (SD of about 30km per week).

Based on the above data, your suggestion that the marathoners ran much more mileage than the other athletes appears to be inaccurate.

Crank Yanker wrote:

He is hesitant to taper properly and despite college PRs of 14:20 and 30:00, runs a series of 2:20 - 2:35 shitathons.

Sorry, as many probably figured out, I meant 2:30 - 2:35 shitathons. (A shitathon is exactly like a marathon, only slower.) I know 2:35 doesn't suck for most of us here but it is certainly underperforming for a 30-flat kid putting in the work but running his "recovery" days at 6:00-6:10 pace, never taking real down weeks, all that jazz.

The previous post formatting didn't come out quite right, so I'll try again.

Crank wrote,.[/quote] "Typical misleading input from Richard_.

The topic here is racing a marathon on limited mileage. The paragraph Richard_ posted tells us two things, both of them meaningless in terms of this topic: One, that three world-class marathoners managed to break 14:00 for 5K and/or 8:20 for 3K and/or 4:00 for the mile -- not only unsurprising but a virtual given; and two, that the entire group of runners studied, not the marathoners alone, averaged 50 to 60 miles a week. I'd bet good money that this average resulted from the 17 non-marathoners putting in around 50 to 55 miles a week while the three marathoners dis considerably more than that.

So until Richard_ can provide training logs or credible testimonials regarding the training of Yawa, Sinqe and Mtola demonstrating that the members of this trio all ran low mileage, he'll remain enmeshed in his usual biased and nonsensical babbling.[/quote]

Quoting from the study:

"Despite comprising only 20% of the competitive distance runners in this country, black South Africans dominate all distances, usually filling equal to or greater than 90% of the top finishing positions in races from 5 to 56 km...

In contrast, white runners dominate the shorter middle-distance running events in this country. Thus, 42 of the 50 fastest 800-m and 41 of the fastest 50 fastest 1650-m (1-mile) times have been recorded by white South African runners...

Accordingly, the aim of this study was to further examine the possible mechanism(s) underlying an apparently superior running performance of black South African runners in races greater than 5km...

To ensure only the very best white and black South African athletes were included in these investigations...

Eleven black and 9 white runners qualified for the study on the basis of the personal best time achieved within the competitive season during which they were studied...

Among the black athletes studied were four of the five all-time best performers over 10,000m in South Africa, the South African champions over 5,000 and 10,000m and the world's two fastest performers in the half-marathon at that time.

...the athletes...were interviewed to obtain details of their training regimens. Each athlete's weekly training program was analyzed for the 8 weeks before each important race. Particular attention was paid to daily distance run, running speed, total running time per day, hill training, sprinting, gymnasium exercise, and details of fartlek, interval, and other speedwork sessions."

According to table 2 in the paper, the black athletes averaged about 92 km per week of running (SD of about 20km per week) while the white athletes averaged about 84km per week per week (SD of about 30km per week).

Based on the above data, your suggestion that the marathoners ran much more mileage than the other athletes appears to be inaccurate.

Bob Treadwell with a 5k best of 14.18 debuted with a 2.19 marathon. He had cranked up his mileage to a high for him 50 ml/p/w ave with a top mileage of 63 and only one run over 13ml. He pushed up to 60-70 the next year and ran 2.15.

John Farrington was a national level runner in the 60s and 70s in UK and then Australia. He had been consistently logging big miles - 150 thru most of one year and had ran 2.21. Work and injury reduced him to 2 x 30min. sessions a day during the week with longer sessions/races on the weekends. Basically about 70-80ml/p/w. He quickly improved and ran 2.11-2.13 frequently over a number of years.

Now don't get me wrong I think the basic concept of runners running better off more mileage is valid BUT runners are WHOLE people not just runners. This means there are numerous variables that have to be balanced so just doing MORE won't always work.

Crank,

"And you're similarly aware that it's a near-guarantee that the eight weeks preceding this eight-week period included significantly more total running in these three marathoners...right?"

This is speculation on your part. Conventional wisdom preaches higher mileage with a taper close to the event (though tapering usually is 2 weeks not 8), but no data in this study indicates these athletes did or did not run much higher volume in the 8 weeks prior to their event. Considering that conventional wisdom suggests elite marathoners run an average of 100mpw and this group of athletes averaged 57 mpw, it seems more likely that they ran lower weekly mileage on average than is generally attributed to elites.

"So your 92-km-per-week bunch might not even include a single one of the three aforementioned marathoners."

Agreed, but again is speculation on your part. I suggest the marathoners would fall within one SD (especially with only 11 subjects), meaning a peak of 70 mpw, still a long way from 100 mpw.

"They could have been doing Thys-esque mileage even during their sharpening and tapering period while the 5,000 and 10,000 specialists were doing less, thus generating the 92-km-per-week off-peak AVERAGE mileage level observed."

Again, a speculation on your part. And we don't know that there were only 3 marathoners in this study. We know at least 3 were but it is not clear as to whether the other athletes also particpated in marathons or not.

You seem to be intent on dismissing the data found in this study. That is your perogative. If you choose to believe your assumptions are accurate, then it will be easy for you to set aside the results. No study is perfect and there is certainly additional information we would both like to see. In the absence of that data I will interpret the data that is presented, understanding its limitations, but not making what seem to me to be unlikely assumptions so as to support my pre-concieved beliefs.

Your decision to insult me instead of strengthening your argument means I now bid you goodbye.

Richard_ wrote:

Your decision to insult me instead of strengthening your argument means I now bid you goodbye.

Richard_, the legend of your unrivaled stupidity grows with every word you type. I pointed out the clear holes in your reasoning and all you come back with is "...speculation on your part." "...again, speculation on your part."

Since you haven't a clue as to how this learning thing works, I'll spell it out for you.

1. Present a hypothesis.

2. Make observations, and on the basis of these observations amass facts.

3. Re-form the original hypothesis in accordance with 2. and repeat until a conclusion can be drawn.

You never got past #2 today. I suspect you never have done so in your warped and cheerless life as an pseudoscientist.

I do not need to "strengthen my argument." In fact, I'm not the one making an argument; I'm merely pointing out how moronic yours is. It is YOU who is proposing here that low-mileage elite marathoners exist. It is YOU who is speculating. The burden rests on YOU to provide evidence of exactly what sort of training Xawa, Sinqe, and Mtolo were doing in the months (not weeks) before their boffo-socko marathons.

In implying it might be unusual for this trio - or any elite runner - to have trained more in the eight weeks preceding the final eight than in that final nearly-two-month stretch, you again reveal your profound ignorance of how accomplished marathoners train. In discarding my comments about the final eight weeks of marathon training (and I never said a word about tapering for the whole eight weeks) while simultaneously ASSUMING these runners all tapered for two weeks - no more, no less - you have painted yourself ever further into the kind of corner that long ago earned you a special pointy cap with a five-letter "D" word written on it. If extraneous Web sites harboring ridiculous, ferociously inaccurate content were a felony offense, you'd be doing 7 to 15 in a buttjammer Texas penitentiary.

The rest of your foolishness, e.g., that pertaining to the number of marathoners in the study, does not bear refuting, as it is sheer unmitigated static.

Here's how you can save you from yourself, R-man. Find some marathoners with these South Africans' credentials who can be shown to have trained 50 miles a week, at most, in the three of four months preceding a goal event. Until you can do that, you're again doing nothing more than spraying shit out of your nostrils and eyeballs every time you post.

Yanker,

I lied. I said goodbye earlier, but will reply once more.

You again resort to insults instead of providing any facts to support your assumptions.

Let me see if I have this straight.

You previously wrote, "I'd bet good money that this average resulted from the 17 non-marathoners putting in around 50 to 55 miles a week while the three marathoners dis considerably more than that."

An then you wrote,"In fact, I'm not the one making an argument."

It appears that the argument that you aren't making is that the 50 to 55 mpw average for the entire group of 20 runners in this study doesn't accurately reflect the weekly mileage of the marathoners in this study. In support of this argument you aren't making you made several assumptions, including that the marathoners might have run higher mileage prior to the 8 weeks of this study, that the 92 km per week might not include one of the 3 known marathoners, and we don't have the specifics training of the 3 known marathoners. In support of these assumptions you insulted me. Then in further support of these assumptions you explained the process of forming and testing a hypothesis and claimed you weren't making an argument. Your coups de grace in support of the argument you aren't making was to insult me one last time.

Very compelling. (not)

If you have any facts to support your assumptions, then please present them. If not, perhaps you can continue insulting me to prove your point?

Goodbye again.

Richard and Crank, you are both very intelligent people. I have enjoyed your posts. Too bad so many threads on letsrun become nasty, when we could have calm, loving discussions instead.

So, anyone else out there who embraces 50-ish MPW for competitive Marathoning? Keep it coming.

Cheers

GILT

GILT,

If you are interested in low mileage marathon training not specifically focused on elites, following is some additional information for your consideration.

http://www.powerrunning.com/Training/Weekly%20Mileage%20and%20Marathon%20Performance.htm

http://www.powerrunning.com/Training/Does%20increasing%20mileage%20make%20for%20a%20faster%20marathon.htm

http://www.georgesheehan.com/essays/essay26.html

http://www.halhigdon.com/senior/Senior.htm

Best of luck to you in your training.

At my best I was only in the 2.40+ range despite training at high levels of volume and intensity.

As an older runner with other interests I have restricted my mileage and in recent years ave 30m/p/w in the lead up to marathons and ultras. Often my training is similar to the program you first posted except I will substitute a race or faster run for the long run every week or two. My mileage range tends to be 25- max of 40 (when I do a long, long run). This limited mileage still allows me to run within 10 - 15min of what I was running at my top.

I have a friend who trains in similar fashion and often beats me in ultras despite being 50+ years.