NY Times Article: Marathoners may not need more miles, but instead need to hit the gym for strength training of legs

Precious Roy wrote:

I had to take about 6 months off to fix a bad knee. I went to the gym and did about 45 min of legs every other day. I just about doubled what I could lift/pull/push with quads/hams/glutes. That is not to say that I am huge now. I was just that weak. I am finally getting past my knee issue and running again. I have kept up the strength training and have not gone over 6 mi a day. I used to consistently do 50-70 mpw. There is definitely a big difference in how my legs are recovering from runs.

i'm not saying the weights are a waste of time but they also might have nothing to do with your "big difference" in how your legs feel from recovering from your runs.

Have you considered the fact that you are now running it looks like about 35 mpw. You used to run 50 to 70. Of course your legs feel better. They'd feel better if you were doing weights or not.

It reminds me of a story about Weldon. When he was in his prime, he was famous in flagstaff for running so slow on his easy days. When I moved out there, I called up our coahc and was like, "Do you want me to run like 20 seconds a mile faster as this is painfully slow?"

Fast forward a bit and weldon was either hurt for like 6 weeks or maybe starting up after a end of season break. I jus tknow he hadn't run in weeks. We went out for a run and my buddy and I thought he was joking. He was running like at least 30 seconds per mile than he normally did on his easy day.

We said, "What the hell are you doing?" HE said, "Nothing. I'm running the pace I always run." We said, "No you aren't.' He said, "YEs I am." We got to a marker like 20 minutes into the run which we knew a time for and it was like 40 seconds per mile faster.

He couldn't believe it. It felt the same to him but he was just way fresher as his mileage was zero versus like 130.

Here's my own anecdotal experience: I started lifting once or twice a week during my last marathon buildup. I focused mostly on core and legs, e.g. squats, calf raises, lunges, planks, crunches. I kept my mileage and quality generally consistent with prior buildups. I don't know for sure if it was the weight lifting, but I did notice that my legs felt materially better in the last 10 miles than in any of my previous 9 marathons. I had no legs cramps and none of that tired/heavy leg feeling that usually starts creeping in around mile 16.

Thanks for the reply. Would be interested in how it works out for you and your group down the road. Regarding some of the other posts on this thread, there is no doubt that mileage is king and that tired legs/body feel better on lower volume. The question is how to support mileage on a long term basis, especially as you get older. Weight work seems like good option.

Real Lyfe Nobodee wrote:

Explain to me how Kenyan and Ethiopian runners hold over 90 of the top 100 marathon times ever ran and they don't lift weights.

I'll wait.

Reasonable question about whether weights were the big diff in recovery, but your example of Weldon was more about freshness, and seemed an incomplete example in terms of explaining recovery. His legs were fresh from not running, so his run started off naturally quicker. But...your explanation missed a key "recovery" issue: if he ran a hilly 20 miler after that 6 week break, would he be ok the next day to run again at a decent pace, or would some strength training during those 6 weeks off have made it easier to recover? I'm guessing the latter based on personal experience, more studies needed, and YMMV.

The question is how to support mileage on a long term basis, especially as you get older. Weight work seems like good option.

Kinda long post...

I'd say most people under 40 get a better bang for the buck by adding more mileage and running strength workouts like hills, strides, and speedwork, instead of strength training. Of course if you are a pro/elite looking for every possible way to improve, or maxed out your mileage, or injury prone, do what Jordan Hasay and Mo Farah/NOP athletes do, and strength train.

For those over 40 (no magic number, everyone is different), two things decline consistently with age, power and eccentric muscle strength. Regular (concentric) strength itself doesn't decline as much. But it's the eccentric strength that prevents muscle soreness (e.g. that quad soreness after downhill running), and power helps with fast finishes, hills and maintain pace and even help reduce lactate and store more glycogen.

Strength training can help reduce declining power and eccentric strength. Even if this is not directly related to running faster, it will allow you to train more/harder, which helps you run faster. There are side benefits as well, maintaining muscle mass keeps you leaner (which helps your running) and maintains a more youthful hormone profile by stimulating more growth hormone and T.

How can more powerful muscles preserve glycogen and reduce lactate? Muscles don't fire fiber by fiber, they fire by motor units, and motor units are bundles of many fibers, e.g. rectus femorus (1/4 of your quads) might have a million fibers, but only 1000 motor units with on avg 1000 fibers each. Also motor units are grouped by fiber type. The body always fires the least amount of units to get the job done, and prefers the smaller aerobic units first. So...the stronger you are, the more units you can spare from firing, reducing lactate production and preserving glycogen, and have some fresh units to fire during surges and strong finishes.

Real Lyfe Nobodee wrote:

Explain to me how Kenyan and Ethiopian runners hold over 90 of the top 100 marathon times ever ran and they don't lift weights.

I'll wait.

I don't believe for one second that those guys don't do strength work. We have this concept of the East Africans as out there training like Rocky. But it's a business, and they're probably more like Ivan Drago.

Interesting. When looking at the article photo, I think this:

From left to right: legs too skinny, eyes too close together, only half a head, un-cool shades, forehead too large, tongue too small, running in tights yuk, too obscured, weird belly button and lastly - clearly a man. I'm just so fussy.

'Jog on' is an English colloquialism. Google it.

themanontherun wrote:

I don't believe for one second that those guys don't do strength work. We have this concept of the East Africans as out there training like Rocky. But it's a business, and they're probably more like Ivan Drago.

Haha. Complete with all the EPO and steroid injections ... Mind you, I was bummed out when I heard that even Rocky himself was found to be using growth hormone:

Brojos,

Do you two not get the little red swiggly lines under misspellings that we all get? Seriously, how do you guys not see the red lines? Are you both colorblind and dyslexic?

Most people who run a marathon do not have enough running background to complete the distance.

That's the problem not a lack of weight training.

Strength training is a supplement to running training not a replacement.

The problem us people will read this and think instead of running 6 x week they will drop that to 2 and go to the gym twice.

biogen wrote:

dammit letsrun, would you please allow for less than and greater than characters in your posts. yeeeesh.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28222581

What do you mean less than

I take it back. they get stripped out.

I just have to say that when I start running what for me are the big miles, over 110 consistently for five to ten weeks, all the times start coming down fast, the long runs get substantially quicker (and longer), the tempos come way down, the track work gets much, much better, and yes, I'll have days between workouts where I run terrible, passed by old ladies with walkers, especially the first several miles, but by the 2nd half of the 2nd run of the day, the legs are starting to feel good again and the times come down. Weight training has never had much of an impact on my times. In fact, take this training cycle where I did weight work in the summer but haven't had time to do it for months now. I was running like crap on 60-80 miles per week, no workouts after calf issues, and I am in my high 40s in age. Then I move up to 100 and over 110 to a high of 117 last week and I have dropped tempos on the TMill with no incline from 5:45 pace for 4 miles to 5:12 pace for 5 miles, feeling not that hard and with an hr in the 150s the whole time, in the span of a month.

Miles, intensity, good training partners rate far above weight training in the list of training stimuli.

I'm open to the ideas that strength training can help runners (this can take many, many different forms and as some point out more mileage is a form of strength training) but the study just seemed to jump from A to C.

I've long thought with the marathon, my legs weren't ready for the pounding. I trained mostly on soft surfaces.

If I could go back and train again I'd incorporate some non-running things into my routine. I pretty much just ran. I did some things that almost no one was doing at the time (Hi-Lo training) but I feel like I missed out on some of the non-running things that could have at the very least helped me stay healthy. I mean I just get my ass kicked now doing a yoga/fitness class. If I had one that once a week while running I think it would have helped.

Ha ha. This was the weight we saw at Kipchoge's training camp:

Full gallery here:

Can you explain what this is?

The "I am signing up for a marathon" when there is little to no running base makes me cringe. Then it's usually followed with, "omg, running ruined my knees."

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Most people who run a marathon do not have enough running background to complete the distance.

That's the problem not a lack of weight training.

Strength training is a supplement to running training not a replacement.

The problem us people will read this and think instead of running 6 x week they will drop that to 2 and go to the gym twice.

This is interesting. I have never run 100 mile weeks (would love to, but have not been able to get there). But I suspect the weights make the biggest difference in runners who do moderate to light mileage, so maybe up to 75 or 80? The line is probably different for the individual.

I do moderate mileage and lift 2-3 times a day (lunges, squats, deadlifts, etc. for lower reps and higher weights) and I find it is a huge help when I compare it to the times that I am not lifting. But, mileages were always close to one another in my comparisons (30 to 60 a week). Perhaps when I get up to some serious high mileage I will have more to compare.

wejo wrote:

quelle surprise? wrote:

So, are we saying that -- after 25 years -- Steve Spence's methods are finally vindicated?

Can you explain what this is?

I was being flippant, but Spence was/is an early advocate of weight training in particular, but also (as I understand it) he wasn't just "more is better" in terms of his approach to mileage. Some old threads here: