Are workouts worth it if you run under 60 miles per week

I agree with a lot of what Two Fiddy Guy says, in particular about building mileage and intensity gradually. If you want to do your best marathon, why not build up to 60 - 70/week? Granted, not everyone has the time.

As for "workouts" in marathon preparation, my subjective take is to do one workout and one long run per week. I'd recommend this for anyone doing 50 - 70 miles per week. For me, the "workout" is a real throw-down build-up run at faster than marathon pace, anywhere from 7 to 13 miles. The last 2 - 3 miles at 80-85% effort. The long run would be 15 - 23 miles, depending on where you are in the 3-4 month build cycle.

Certainly, some athletes can do two workouts and a long run, and more volume. I'll stick to one workout/one long run. I was tending towards two workouts/one long run in my most recent marathon build. Guess what, I'm nursing an Achilles injury. A cautionary tale. We're all different of course, and I am in my early 60s... good luck!

Lenny Leonard wrote:

It is everywhere wrote:

I'm in a similar training plan/goal. I run 50-55 miles a week (6 days) with one longer run 13 miles and one tempo workout (6min miles). If you are sticking with your mileage then yes a workout is helpful and not a bigger time commitment. Swap out an 8 mile run with a 2 mile warmup, 2x2 mile tempo, 2 mile cooldown. The fast miles will even out the slow miles and still equal the same time.

I think the faster miles help a lot! It has helped my everyday runs get faster without any additional effort. Give it a try once and see it if works for you.

13 miles is not a long run.

It's around 25% of his weekly mileage, so it can reasonably be considered a long run if you're running 50-55 mpw like op. imo.

do you even run bro wrote:

Marathon runners. If you’re only running 50-60 miles per week, should you do workouts? Or is the aerobic efficiency built purely off higher mileage.

If a runner wants to break 2:55 in the marathon and only runs 50 miles per week with say 2 workouts and a long run does he have a better chance than someone who’s been logging 70 + of easy mileage?

The only hesitation I have in answering this is you specifically ask about the marathon. Generally, I would think the fewer miles you run, the more important the faster paced workouts become. I would think this would be true of marathons, but the workouts might look like medium fast'ish long'ish runs instead of shorter/faster intervals.

I'm going with 50 mi / wk with 2 workouts and a long run beats 70+ easy mileage if it's jogging daily. If 70+ throws in tempo'ish paces into that, I'd change my answer to 70+ wins.

IDK, ask Brazier, a guy who runs 3:35, runs about 35 miles a week.

do you even run bro wrote:

Marathon runners. If you’re only running 50-60 miles per week, should you do workouts? Or is the aerobic efficiency built purely off higher mileage.

If a runner wants to break 2:55 in the marathon and only runs 50 miles per week with say 2 workouts and a long run does he have a better chance than someone who’s been logging 70 + of easy mileage?

If anything, the less milage you run, workouts matter more as you need each mile to give you as much return as possible. This board has an obsession with high volume training and intervals never exceeding race pace. Reality is, the higher we can move the AT, the better you get at using lactate, the more efficient you will be as a runner.

We can either push from below or pull from above. Both methods work in conjunction with one another. We need to pull the AT up by doing intervals at slightly faster than AT and we need to push from below in longer steady state at sustainable pace to become more efficient at holding the sub threshold percentage.

Thanks, it is right around 25%.

I run 6 days a week, 37 miles (not including my 13 mile long run day) leaves me to average 7.4 miles in 5 days. If I ran 7 days a week, 35 miles (not including a 15 mile long run) would leave me to average 5.8 miles in 6 days. I think running more miles per run is more beneficial.

Absolutely 0 chance on gods green earth brazier runs 35 miles per week. Even for 800m. I bet all the money I own (by letsrun standards this is millions) and my girlfriend (by letsrun standards she’s 9/10 - no pics) that he runs basically doubles that and change.

Anyway. The thread doesn’t specify how much running you need to do to be competitive at the 800m. The focus is on the marathon but I’d argue the process would favour 5km - half marathon runners.

IMO - volume is key. From a distance running perspective I’d argue it’s the single highest component to your training plan. Followed by consistency. Let’s push the boat out further. Show me someone who’s runs 100mpw for 12 weeks and I’ll show you that person as THE marathon runner.

Might want to double check your volume statement.

The effect of high- vs. low-intensity training on aerobic capacity in well-trained male middle-distance runners

"Furthermore, the HILV-group had a marked increase in vVO2max and vLT after the training period when compared with pretest. Both groups had a marked improvement in RE. The performance test showed that the HILV-group made 301 ± 886 m (1.0 ± 2.8 minutes) and the HVLI-group 218 ± 546 m (0.9 ± 1.8 minutes) in progress. The production of lactic acid was notably higher in the HILV-group (0.9 mmol) when compared with the pretest. The findings show that male middle-distance runners tested in this study improved in vVO2max and vLT more when they train around LT, than training with low intensity for a short period of 10 weeks."

OhioBuff wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

13 miles is not a long run.

It's around 25% of his weekly mileage, so it can reasonably be considered a long run if you're running 50-55 mpw like op. imo.

A long run is a run longer than 90 minutes. It has nothing to do with your weekly mileage.

For a marathon, where your goal is 2:55, your long run should be more like 2-3 hours. Ideally it's like 3:00 on your feet for a single run every 2-3 weeks. This can include intermittent walking breaks.

I run three times a week. My long run is 90-120 minutes. It works out to about 40-50% of my weekly mileage is in that run.

Opinion not statement. And these type of studies don’t account for much in my opinion. AGAIN, notice I said opinion.

A lot of people read into this type of thing too much. I’m telling you, barring injury, if joe bloggs goes from 40mpw week to 70mpw sensibly and safely over a few months, then he runs a better marathon. Safely being the key word.

And patience being another key word. This isn’t a quick fix or go from one week at 40mpw to next week at 70 but if he/she does this, they will improve.

I don’t think the improvement comes from a few 50 mile weeks with 10x400 or a few 25 minute tempos. You’re racing for 26.2 miles. Get used to running more and you’ll be better!

Swim Bike Run wrote:

Might want to double check your volume statement.

The effect of high- vs. low-intensity training on aerobic capacity in well-trained male middle-distance runners

"Furthermore, the HILV-group had a marked increase in vVO2max and vLT after the training period when compared with pretest. Both groups had a marked improvement in RE. The performance test showed that the HILV-group made 301 ± 886 m (1.0 ± 2.8 minutes) and the HVLI-group 218 ± 546 m (0.9 ± 1.8 minutes) in progress. The production of lactic acid was notably higher in the HILV-group (0.9 mmol) when compared with the pretest. The findings show that male middle-distance runners tested in this study improved in vVO2max and vLT more when they train around LT, than training with low intensity for a short period of 10 weeks."

Definition of well trained in a lot of these studies leaves a lot to be desired:) But yeah to a certain extent I agree. I have a lot of confidence in a guy who is running doing 4-6 miles of HM pace running, 4-5 miles at 10k and a 2 hour long run having a decent marathon if you run 25 miles on the other 4 days or 50 . If you are have just been easy running at 8 mins/mile, I don't have much faith in your ability to run 26 miles at 6:50 pace no mater what unless we are talking really big miles (say 120+).

Is it better to build volume and then quality? I doubt it. I think a lot of this stuff goes back to the Lydiard days of anaerobic work stunting aerobic development. Sure. But we aren't talking abou 8x400 all out for workouts. We are talking things like 6x1 mile at 10k pace or 4x2 miles at HM that build aerobic ability.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

If you’re not doing workouts, you’re not training.

You can run a better marathon with three good workouts a week only vs. running every day with no workouts.

Do you want to run a fast race or have some meaningless mileage number on a training log?

I have heard of this guy who broke multiple Masters WR while running slow three hours a day.

I wonder how much faster he would have been if he had done workouts. Do you have any idea?

My 800 group ran 35MPW last year. We had 2 guys run 1:46 and 2 run 1:48. None of us are as talented as Brazier.

Going back to this comment as a staring point.

I think the optimum amount of time to train per week is 10 hours. Lydiard etc and other old school heads say 100mpw OR 10 hours, whichever comes first. Most of us can't run 100MPW in 10 hours but we get a tonne of benefits in running for that amount of time per week.

Now, back to workouts vs volume. In my mind, one can't exist without the other. The ratio between the two can be debated until the cows come home but if your 10 hours per week are just easy jogging for 52 weeks of the year you better not be surprised when all you're good at is 10 hours of jogging a week. You NEED variety. Even if it's one fairly relaxed tempo per week and 1 'session'. Hell it could be 6 days easy and one Marathon specific long run and you'll do ok but not just 7 easy days per week jogging.

I do think however, that volume goes a long way. And that links in with the 10 hours dedicated to running per week. Even at a very slow pace you'll cover a decent amount of distance in 10 hours.

So golden rule/formula from my understanding would be:

1. get comfy with 10 hours per week

2. add some marathon pace miles into your long run

3. add some LT intervals or 'speed' type work

oh and while you're at it, make your easy days, easier by splitting the run into two. 6 + 4 miles each day for 10 miles. You'll do well at all distances off that training.

And Brazier and the other Bowerman boys do loads of miles not just 35. That's laughable. Maybe they record 35 miles of quality work.

Not interested. They’re not running marathons. Brazier runs more and you know it.

So you think I could beat him if he only ran 35MPW? By the way, all 4 of our guys were from the same small state. If we can run 1:46, pretty sure Brazier can run 1:43 on the same training.

Two Fiddy Guy - Excellent post!

Of course 50-55 mpw is enough to reach your optimum marathon capacity. I have coached very good long distance results on this kind of low mileage and 2-3 workouts per week.

'good enough goal' doesn't register with me. try your best and reach your potential. At least aimed at people on these boards. I'd say most want to be the best they can be. granted some can't commit due to work/family but even then I think that's a cop out.

Can you get up an hour earlier to get a session in? Can you get a run in on your lunch break? Can you do that extra 30 mins before the kids get home from school? All harmless questions but 99% of people who really want to do their absolute best, will find a way. If they don't, they'll find an excuse and say 'being 10 mins quicker isn't worth the commitment' - nonsense!