Marathon Training On Low Volume???

Note,

Thank you for the info. Interestingly, your comments about Yawa's training being common amongst South African athletes is echoed by this research study. In the study it was noted that the black S. African runners ran a very high volume of intensity (around 35% if I recall correctly), especially in comparison to the white S. African athletes who ran around 8% intensity.

Best regards,

Now that's a first.

That would be a first.

Spouting semantic dreck about whether I'm primarily making an argument or merely destroying one of yours is nothing more than another way for you to try to create a smokescreen so as to conceal the objective vacuity of your initial statements. It's right up there with "I won't talk to you if you insult me." Maybe you really can fool yourself with these "tactics" (not an especially challenging thing to do), but no one else is buying it.

The numbers I threw out and the assumptions I made were only intended to demonstrate that from statistical standpoint, your arguing that Xawa et al. used a low-mileage approach was ill-founded at best. All it takes to shoot down an unsupported idea - and you had no basis for specifically calling Xawa et al. low-mileage runners - is one plausible example of how your assumptions might have been in error. I provided several such examples. You didn't re-think your earlier foolishness, though, choosing to whine and obfuscate instead like Martin Short's Nathan Thurm slimy-lawyer character from the old days of SNL. Do you chain-smoke while typing this crap?

The bottom line is that you failed to provide evidence of what Xawa et al. did in training. This onus was on you, and instead you claimed that those questioning you were "speculating." Again, the flimsiness of this is intuitive to most, but you have no idea how stone-cold asinine you sound.

Thanks to "Note," we're beginning to see a few more facts. One of them demonstrates that not only was Xolile Yawa putting in about 60% more mileage than the magical 50 that this thread is founded on, but his 10K times suggest his low mileage marked him as somewhat of an underperformer in the marathon. Eventually we'll have training information for Sinqe and Mtolo, and those guys will have been shown to have logged a lot more than 50 miles a week as well, but by then you will have moved on to some other quacked-out argument, discouraged by all of those insulting jerks who would just rather name-call than deal in science.

You owe everyone here an apology and perhaps a period of self-banishment of at least one hundred days. I hope you'll follow through.

To drop yet another safe onto Richard's head...

The 50 miles a week is FAR from the 3 days a week training that he promotes on his site. Richard is doing nothing but trying to pimp his site. Plain and simple. Richard should get a job writing for Runners World so he can write about how doing nothing but 3 days a week of running plus plyometrics and pilates will make you a 2:05 marathon runner. What Richard promotes is a direct 180 degree turn from what MOST ELITE RUNNERS ARE DOING. For every runner running 2:10 marathons NEVER going over 100 miles a week there are ten 2:10 marathoners who go over 100 miles a week on a REGULAR BASIS...or something to that effect.

I ran 2:49 at 2003 Boston averaging 35mpw over 14 weeks at age 47.

Sun--15-25 miles(or 4 races up to 21.2km)

Tue--6 wks of hill repeats; 7 wks of Daniels-style intervals

Thu--15-30 min tempo at 90% maxHR

BS in Ex Sci wrote:

For every runner running 2:10 marathons NEVER going over 100 miles a week there are ten 2:10 marathoners who go over 100 miles a week on a REGULAR BASIS...or something to that effect.

I'm sure you understand how Richard would try to weasel out of this one. Had you not insulted him with the comment about dropping extremely heavy metal objects on his hollow head, he would surely ask you for data and say that your stated 10:1 ratio of sub-2:10 marathoners regularly doing 100 to sub-2:10ers who never do is "an assumption" or "speculation." This serves the purpose of distracting the less focused observers from his unforgivably poor grasp on the basics of training and the realities of top-level competition.

But to keep this somewhat in the spirit of the guy who started the thread, there are a lot of everyday runners who can't do more than 50 or whatever miles a week and want to know how to make the most of them in terms of marathon training. The last's guy example is a good one.

I ran 2:49 at 2003 Boston averaging 35mpw over 14 weeks at age 47.

Sun--15-25 miles(or 4 races up to 21.2km)

Tue--6 wks of hill repeats; 7 wks of Daniels-style intervals

Thu--15-30 min tempo at 90% maxHR

I have no idea how fast this guy ran in his younger and perhaps higher-mileage years, and this would obviously be relevant, but he and others have shown that once you have an adequate base, as long as you keep the long run and a couple of hiher intensity days you can remain "reasonably" close to whatever your true potential is (for some people "reasonable" is 15 minutes, for others less). Of course, this is intuitive.

BS in Ex Sci wrote:

The 50 miles a week is FAR from the 3 days a week training that he promotes on his site.

BS in Ex Sci,

Agreed, there is a signficant difference between what these elites are running and the 3 days per week I suggest for runners with average genetics. However, what you failed to point out is that I don't suggest 3 days a week for elites. Let's be fair and accurate, shall we? I suggest 3 days per week for those of average genetic talents. For those with greater genetic talents I suggest higher mileage and more frequent training. For those with below average talent I suggest an even smaller training load. Were you not aware that I recommend different training amounts based on factors such as genetic ability?

Admittedly, it is easier and requires no additional thought for someone to just characterize my training recommendations as "train 3 days per week". However, that characterization is wrong and misses the essence of what I recommend and why I recommend it. It misses the critically important details of my program.

I recognize my ideas challenge your belief that 100mpw is necessary to run your best marathon. On the other hand it's a lot easier to attack me if you pretend that I recommend "3 days per week for everyone, including the elites".

As you noted earlier "normal" and "outlier" exist. I suggest we apply this fact in our training recommendations. If I suggested that everyone, regardless of any other factors, train just 3 days per week then I would be making the same error as someone who says everyone, regardless of other factors, "can't run your best marathon without running over 100 miles per week at some point in your training." Both make the error of ignoring other factors (genetics being the primary one) and making a blanket prescription for everyone.

So, yes, what I promote for runners of average genetic abilities (3 days per week) is very different from what I would recommend for elites. Truth be told I really don't provide much training guidance for elites. My writings are aimed at everyday runners.

Well, did anyone consult with Galloway?

Galloway. Hahahahaha.

Richard, BSc, Crank et al....this is a great discussion. Let's not beat up each other.

I'm 43, coming back from injury, maybe in 34-something 10k shape. 10 years ago I ran 31:09, 20k in 66:23. Nearly always on 50MPW or less.

I won't bore you with details, but I MUST stick with about 50MPW, and I want to do a good Marathon in the next 1-3 years.

That's whay I started this thread. To get opinions, other experiences etc.

I really do love the idea of a weekly sched that sees a long day surrounded by days off, and 4 short days. ie Long-0-4xshort-0.

Cheers

GILT

Lost wrote:

I was waiting for the low mileage bashing. Surprised it took so long.

"Bashing"? Who is bashing? Run low mileage all you want. I have no problem with people doing that. I don't think less of them. They have different goals. Who am I to question those goals.

The poster didn't make clear if he wanted to run a GOOD marathon or his BEST marathon. To run your BEST marathon you do not do low mileage. This is not groundbreaking news. Nor is it in question.

For some people, 50MPW may bring them their best Marathon!!!

Richard_ wrote:

Agreed, there is a signficant difference between what these elites are running and the 3 days per week I suggest for runners with average genetics. However, what you failed to point out is that I don't suggest 3 days a week for elites. Let's be fair and accurate, shall we? I suggest 3 days per week for those of average genetic talents. For those with greater genetic talents I suggest higher mileage and more frequent training.

What an unbelievable waste of time. We already KNOW how to run fast marathons. We knew it for years. And people did it. Then they started thinking about it and everything went to hell.

The ranks of

Olympic Marathon Gold Medalists

World Marathon Champions

Boston Marathon Champions

New York Marathon Champions

etc.

are full of people who had "average" genetics and a fanatical desire to be the best. People who tuned out the know-nothing fools telling them to run 3 days a week and instead went out and ran 7, doing doubles, doing mileage. People who ignored the cautionary hacks and just did it.

Do you have any idea how many people with "average genetics" people broke 2:20 for the marathon back in the 70s and 80s. In 1983 along something like 280 Americans did it.

How many Americans are breaking 2:20 today? A fraction of that.

What is the difference -- they're not running the mileage. They're training "smarter" not harder.

Have you ever seen some of those guys run back in the day? Horrible form, awkward gaits, terrible builds. But they did it anyway. Half of them had no business breaking 2:40, much less 2:20. But they just trained their tails off and turned average genetics into fantastic marathons.

You want to run a fast marathon? Run a ton of miles. Case closed.

In 1983 along something like 280 Americans did it.

Steady on. The actual statistic is 267 sub-2:20 marathons not 267 individual sub-2:20 runners. Huge difference.

One other thing, and this applies to Richard as much as you. Quit talking about "genetics", neither you nor Richard have any basis upon which to say which people have "average genetics" and which people don't. If you do, post it up.

ron hill is also crazy

you have to have some significant background if you're going to run a decent marathon. You could probably take a guy like Gebrselassie and put him on 70mi weeks and he could probably run 2:07 -- but not because he runs 70mi/wk, but because of all the running he's done up to that point.

Richard_ wrote:

Let's be fair and accurate, shall we? I suggest 3 days per week for those of average genetic talents.

Let's tear our heads out of our bum-bum-holes, shall we? There is NO evidence to suggest that those lacking the genetic endowments (favorable biomechanics; mitochondrial inducibility; muscle-fiber ratio; etc.) required to eventually run elite-level times cannot benefit for daily or near-daily training. There is NO known correlation between what I'll call "recoverability" and performance level (e.g., Mark Carroll might break down on relatively low mileage and require ample cross-training on a bike, while some four-hour marathoners can slog through 90 minutes of training a day and never get hurt). And while it's anecdotally true that faster runners are likely to have better biomechanics and thus better able to tolerate higher training loads, this in NO way implies that a significant fraction of people will gain optimum benefits from training only three times a week. Your palpable desire to wish this into fact is what makes you both a gadfly and a laughingstock.

You at some point adopted this "some people do best on 3x/week" idea as your conclusion, perhaps assuming you could one day make a name for yourself by making a radical discovery that had eluded people with twice your education and IQ level, and, working precisely backward as compared to the scientific method, have been trying to prove this assumed conclusion ever since. You've failed, and you will continue to fail with flying colors until you finally accept that your ideas are thoroughly shot full of holes. And if you don't enjoy being ridiculed, don't toss idiotic ideas you cannot support in the least into a public forum while the big kids are tyring to have a serious discussion.

Nobby Nomates wrote:

One other thing, and this applies to Richard as much as you. Quit talking about "genetics", neither you nor Richard have any basis upon which to say which people have "average genetics" and which people don't. If you do, post it up.

Well I haven't taken DNA samples. You've got me there.

On the other hand, Have you ever seen Bill Reifsnyder run? Don Janicki? How about Tom Derderian, (who posts here occasionally)? Hell, even Alberto Salazar had hideous form. But we are to believe that these guys and all the others were all just "gifted".

Bull. They were animals. They trained their tails off.

Richard's point is sophistry. If someone runs a fast marathon, it's genetics, regardless of how many days a week they trained. Everyone else should only run 3 days a week. And when they don't run fast on that regimen, hey, it's proof that they don't have the genetic ability right?

Wrong. It's proof that they only trained 3 days a week.

The guys in the 70s and 80s showed how to do it. Are we supposed to believe that the staggering drop in sub-2:20 marathons is just COINCIDENCE? Of course not.

my 22 year old friend ran 2:32 something in the marathon on 40+ miles a week. it was his first one too. i bet he can run in the low 2:20s on 50 miles a week.

Good for him.

Crank,

Still no facts/data/research to support your previous assumptions (and your more recently stated opinions)? You keep spitting out your opinions and plenty of insults, but are lacking in factual data. It appears that you have chosen to hurl insults my way until you prove your argument. Who knows, maybe you really will prove me wrong by insulting me. And perhaps it's just me, but do you really expect us to believe that name calling and insults are part of a serious discussion?

Let's talk again when you stop using insults as a debate tactic and decide to engage in actual intelligent, substantive discussion. Until then, should I just expect more insults?

Nopers,I invite you to learn a little more about my training philosophy since you got this part entirely wrong.

Nopers wrote:

Richard's point is sophistry. If someone runs a fast marathon, it's genetics, regardless of how many days a week they trained. Everyone else should only run 3 days a week. And when they don't run fast on that regimen, hey, it's proof that they don't have the genetic ability right?

Are you familiar with the normal distribution curve? I believe and research supports that the people recover at different rates. Some recover fast, some slow. I recall a study where one subject recovered in a matter of hours while others took 3 days to recover. I've seen studies where it took 7 days for some subjects to recover. So, if people recover at different rate then how frequently should each individual train. If you and I perform the same workout and you recover in 4 hours and I recover in 3 days, when should you train again and when should I train again? Should I have you train once every 3 days? Should I train twice daily? Or should we base training frequency on rate of recovery? In medicine this concept is called dose-response. Not everyone responds to the same degree to the same medicine. 2 aspirin for me might be optimum, while 2 aspirin for a 3 year old is excessive and dangerous. Doctors don't prescribe the exact same dose to every patient. Well, it works the same in other things as well. I suggest training should be individualized for each person based on their capabilities and genetic talents.