Say what???? wrote:
Meh wrote:
5) Be consistent, huge mileage weeks here and there are useless and may hurt you.
Complete nonsense to say that huge mileage weeks here and there are useless.
A random 80-90m week may be detrimental/risky for a 40-50mpw guy that's my point. Running consistently that 50mpw is more important in the long period.
You can run a good marathon on 40-50m a week. Obviously 50 is better than 40 though.
On lower miles, I think the long runs should include more MP miles than you would maybe do if you were running more mileage. With less overall time on your feet, getting used to goal pace becomes more important IMO. Treat the long run as a MP workout. 8 easy/8 @ MP etc. on a regular basis.
On one of the shorter days (50 mins) run a 4-6m tempo at close to, or at, HMP. This will help make MP feel a bit easier.
Just my thoughts. Good luck.
After that Boston race he got serious about wanting to run in the Olympics and got himself to 100 mile weeks for a good stretch of time, I can't recall how long a stretch but it was long enough to have had an effect. And it did. He ran almost ten minutes slower than his PR. After that he focused on trying to start a business and running was sort of sporadic. He did run a 2:29 at altitude in that era on essentially one 20 mile run a week and nothing more save for a very occasional mid week 10. Some years after that he started doing 120 mile weeks, often with three 20 mile runs, and got a PR that was over a minute faster than his old one and fourteen years later. I wouldn't stake my life on this, but I don't know if anyone has set two sub 2;20 PRs so many years apart.
Allen1959 wrote:
My experience has always been a big pay-back from single, long-duration efforts -- no matter the pace. I know others often make a point of keeping the long run at some arbitrary maximum of weekly mileage, but I don't buy into that notion.
Exactly, if you've build up on the long runs gradually, and have done a decent amount of basic mileage/training, you shouldn't have problems. I've never calculated how big part (percent) my long run played in the weekly mileage. Have some good old common sense, and listen to your body. I wanted to shout that, but barely managed to stay calm.
About the gradual build up, I did a 43k long run in 3 hours 26min when was 22 years old and averaged 68 kilometres / 42,5miles per week, the longest run before that one was a 25k :D But I had done a 140k week (88miles) and about a handful @ 80-100k (50-63mpw) weeks during that spring. Ran a 1.14 HM 13 days after that long run, and a 2.37 1000m a couple of more weeks after.
A long run is the most important run especially for a low mileage runner, and even more important for a marathoner with a limited time for training. It does good things to a middle distance runner too.
Speaker of Hard Truths wrote:
lessismore wrote:
LRCer's unite:
Sometimes we can't just get the 70+ mile weeks in.
Yes "we" can.
lessismore wrote:
If one has to do 40-50 mile weeks what are your recommendations.
Run more.
lessismore wrote:
Full 6-8 months of training.
Likely 5 maybe 6 runs per week but can only get 50 minutes in at a time besides the weekends.
If you woke up 30 minutes earlier you'd have 80 minutes instead of 50. Stop making excuses.
lessismore wrote:
Thoughts? advice?
Just admit you are lazy.
MAYBE a bit sarcastic (which is what I like sometimes) response without the BS, but this holds true in many cases. Not meaning the OP of this thread, of course... :)
Surely you could structure a week around 3 'workouts' and use rest/easy recovery days as needed.
1 - Long run - structured like Malmo did his HM workouts (i.e. 5 hard/5 easy or 10 hard/10 easy).
2 - Fartlek - something structured like a Mona fartlek. (2x90sec, 4x60sec, 4x30sec, 4x15sec with a slower tempo recovery of the same time between each repetition. The session takes 20mins in total.
3 - Medium long run - run as a progression run or maybe an easy run if you are feeling beat up.
Track workouts take a lot of time, if you are limited to 50 minutes, it would perhaps be better to do those 'interval' workouts on the roads.
Allen1959 wrote:
It has never been my goal to be a low-mileage runner, but it seems to always work out that way.
I probably never ran to my potential, but 42 miles per week (4-month marathon training period) resulted in 2:40:30 at age 23, and 2:56:03 at age 43.
And 38 mpw for 3:07:23 at age 58.
Majority of the mileage at very easy pace. Dedicated LT and VO2max workouts (or races to substitute). Weekly long runs. Occasional secondary long runs as progressions.
It CAN be done, not to perfection--- but there are ways to maximize 50MPW training.
I have run marathons both at age 25 (2:23:XX on 40MPW) then at age 54, a 3:07:XX Marathon and 62Low 10Mile Race on less than 50MPW. The way I trained, I would close hard, very hard, on my distance runs at least 2X per week. I also used to do workouts like 4 X 400 in 0:58 (young) and close in sub-12:00 on my hardest runs when in my mid 50's. I also did workouts like 4 X 400, 2 X 800, or.......4 X 1200.
I would often close real hard for at least the last 5K on longer runs (since you are running 5-6 days per week, you are probably doing at least one 10-15 miler per week). This can serve to replace the real long runs high milers do. It's not easy-- running full time when you are working, bringing up a family, living a busy life, etc
jtface wrote:
Surely you could structure a week around 3 'workouts' and use rest/easy recovery days as needed.
1 - Long run - structured like Malmo did his HM workouts (i.e. 5 hard/5 easy or 10 hard/10 easy).
2 - Fartlek - something structured like a Mona fartlek. (2x90sec, 4x60sec, 4x30sec, 4x15sec with a slower tempo recovery of the same time between each repetition. The session takes 20mins in total.
3 - Medium long run - run as a progression run or maybe an easy run if you are feeling beat up.
Track workouts take a lot of time, if you are limited to 50 minutes, it would perhaps be better to do those 'interval' workouts on the roads.
#1 not a good idea.
I'm running better than I have in years running while 50 miles a week as compared to 70. Turned 50 and realized I don't need to run 70+ miles a week after decades of consistent running. All killer no filler. Ran a marathon as fast as I did in my late 30th this year.
Emphasis on workouts and recovery between them. Big emphasis on running ecnomy--short and fast reps, lots of strides. Run LOTS of hills for strength. Run long runs fast or do them the day after a hard workout when your legs are trashed. Mix of short and long tempos getting more specific as the race approaches. Recovery runs are shuffles and no more than 45 minutes, usually two days of them between the workouts.
why not?
lessismore wrote:
LRCer's unite:
Sometimes we can't just get the 70+ mile weeks in. If one has to do 40-50 mile weeks what are your recommendations.
Full 6-8 months of training.
Likely 5 maybe 6 runs per week but can only get 50 minutes in at a time besides the weekends.
Thoughts? advice?
Ok rather than target 40-50 miles per week, I would recommend thinking about what you are able to do within the confines of your weekly schedule.
So you have hopefully 6 days per week of running. And weekday runs are limited to 50 minutes. And you are training for the marathon.
So the easy part is that you will run 50 minutes on all the weekdays that you run. Since you are marathon training, you will need to do a true long run on the weekend. Maybe 20 milers during your marathon segment, but I would stick to 2 hours (whatever distance that is for you) most of the time if you are running 50 minutes during the week.
In marathon training it also makes sense to have your long run be a hard workout. You could do two long days Saturday or Sunday (sort of like a Canova special block) sometimes, but I think that might be a recipe for injury. Either way, if your long run is also a hard workout, it probably makes sense to have the day after be your day off.
That leaves the weekday workouts. You will have to see how your recovery is, but with a true workout/long run on the weekend, you can probably stick to just one hard workout during the week. I think Malmo's 5 easy/ 5 hard or other fartlek/timed intervals are great workouts for someone with time constraints.
So this is what I'd do:
M: off
T: 50 easy
W: 50 minute running with workout (i.e. 5easy/5hard or something like that. 20 minute tempo also works)
T: 50 easy
F: 50 easy with some 30 second to 1 min surges to get a little speed
S: 50 easy
S: Long run workout
HRE wrote:
pics or it didn't happen wrote:
Top 10 at Boston is not anonymous. What year and who is the friend? Did he have higher mileage in his background?
I don't know if he wants to be identified or not so you can believe me or not. It was in the middle of the decade. He won the Enschede Marathon in the late 60s on 60-70 a week. That was really as high as he ever went until his late 30s, almost a decade later, when he got up to 120 a week and ran 2:15 which was a PB.
In a similar vein, there was a Scotsman called Alastair Wood who did 2:13 at his best and won the London to Brighton ultra in record time on about the same mileage. He never went beyond 15 miles in a single run, usually having one of those each week, and would do sessions like 60x 220. Then he'd maybe run 2 miles on the following day. After setting the record at Brighton he said something about having run more miles that day than he'd done in a training week.
It's not that I don't believe you it's just that anyone can say anything on the internet. As you mentioned in an earlier thread, the runner was Bernard Allen, who was 9th at Boston in 1974.
Nice digging job.
it is possible. some posters have given excellent advice, and i can confirm that 40 miles and additional a little bit cycling to work (which is like easy runs) works fine. i like the furman-first plan, which can be modified easily. 3 days peer week, that is it, but never easy, and some additional cycling for example.
your build up is 6-8 months, that is sufficient if you are used to run. the long run at or close at marathon pace will be a very important part of your weekly schedule. 15 miles at the beginning, but work up to 18 miles and more (and at least five 20 milers). two more purposeful runs (one interval workout and one tempo/threshold run), that is three runs/week. each run is hard and followed by a rest day. after the third run (long run) it is good to have two rest days. if you are getting stronger and you have time for it, try 4-3-4-3 like this for a while:
mo: intervals, tu: rest, we: threshold/tempo, th: rest, fr: tempo, sa: rest, su: long run (4 runs completed), mo: rest, tu: rest (two rest days completed), we: intervals, th: rest, fr: tempo/threshold, sa: rest, su: long run (3 runs completed), 2 consecutive rest days, repeat the whole cycle.
if you are able to pull out intervals like 20x400 or 10-12x3mins and tempo runs of 8-12 miles or 4x15mins at or close to LT pace and long runs like 20 milers at close to marathon pace, you will see that just three quality runs per week like this might be the answer to the question of this thread. it is not the ideal training, but as you have written: some have simply not the time to run every day.
HRE wrote:
Nice digging job.
It popped up on the 2007 thread about best marathoners who only ran once a day, which got resurrected and hit the first page.
I saw that thread and thought how odd it was that it turned up while this one is kicking around. But just thinking about the business of being able to say anything on the Internet, if you wanted, you still could not believe me about what Bernie did. He's never been profiled anywhere so there's no way you could dig around to see if what I wrote was accurate.
Then again, if you go to the years before WWII, 40-50 mpw was pretty common mileage for marathoners done on 3-4 days a week. People thought that running was too stressful to do every day so you had guys like Les Pawson or Old Kelly doing 20-15-10 or so with a day off between runs.
[quote]HRE wrote:
Then again, if you go to the years before WWII, 40-50 mpw was pretty common mileage for marathoners done on 3-4 days a week. People thought that running was too stressful to do every day so you had guys like Les Pawson or Old Kelly doing 20-15-10 or so with a day off between runs.[/quot
for those with limited time the only way to go. there is no reason to laugh about it.
HRE wrote:
pics or it didn't happen wrote:
Top 10 at Boston is not anonymous. What year and who is the friend? Did he have higher mileage in his background?
I don't know if he wants to be identified or not so you can believe me or not. It was in the middle of the decade. He won the Enschede Marathon in the late 60s on 60-70 a week. That was really as high as he ever went until his late 30s, almost a decade later, when he got up to 120 a week and ran 2:15 which was a PB.
In a similar vein, there was a Scotsman called Alastair Wood who did 2:13 at his best and won the London to Brighton ultra in record time on about the same mileage. He never went beyond 15 miles in a single run, usually having one of those each week, and would do sessions like 60x 220. Then he'd maybe run 2 miles on the following day. After setting the record at Brighton he said something about having run more miles that day than he'd done in a training week.
Unfortunately, you ratted him out in another thread some years ago.
The board was more positive then. had I known what it would become I may not have.
It depends on who is attempting it.
On 80-100 I was 2:40. At 40-50 I was 3:12 with a horrible recovery.
I didn't work for me