Avoiding marathons in the short term to get faster long term

For a long time I just used the plans in Advanced Marathoning and I still think these are very solid. They more or less took me to 2:30. The midweek workout in these is 4 miles building up to 6-8 miles at HM pace. Looking over the plans now I remember that earlier in the cycle you only get these every other week. Alternate weeks it’s just the miles. Then there’s some VO2 max stuff in the last few weeks to sharpen you up a bit. Long runs are just long runs (18-22 miles) other than a few with 8-12 miles of continuous marathon pace thrown in. I always used to try and run the “easy” long runs at a decent pace, 7 minute miles or thereabouts.

What I do now is tweaked but the principles are roughly the same. The largest change is probably that I now do more threshold intervals instead of the continuous threshold running. Pfitzinger advocates continuous because he says it helps develop the marathon mentality, but I find psychologically I can get a more honest threshold effort with intervals. It’s still aiming for the same intensity and amount of work (20-40 minutes) but split into 5-20 minute intervals and short rest. I also sometimes mix up my long runs now by throwing in a few 1-2 miles surges but that’s just trying to squeeze a bit more from the tube.

Other than strides, my training has never included much above HM pace. I don’t think you need it other than for sharpening.

Consistent training, wether for marathon or 5k will make you a better overall runner regardless. Running a lot of miles with some quality work once a week can take you long for the 5k. Running moderate mileage with intervals three times a week can improve your marathon greatly. Running is running no matter how you do it and for someone who hasnt maxed their potential in any way all running will make you better on all distances. For running sub 2:30 my experience is that you need to be able to run around 33 flat for 10k, but not much faster if you train well for the marathon. That said, it is never bad to vary training in order to become better in all ranges of running and to work on your weaknesses.

Makemegetfast wrote:

HRE wrote:

The exact opposite worked for me. I only began making serious progress in my track and cross country times after I started training for marathons. I would say to train for the marathon race regularly at shorter distances in the process.

Thanks HRE and notes about the racing - plan to race much more when the world eventually gets back to normal.

It's funny how different things work for different people. Subjectivity, I felt my fittest (and ran HM and 10k PBs), when I was running an average of 55mpw for about a 12 week period (at that time a new high for me), putting in two fairly short interval runs, or tempo or cruise intervals; and almost totally disregarding the long run, often being just 12 miles.

Training for a marathon does not necessarily mean doing really long runs though that can be part of it certainly common, and something many successful marathoners swear by.. But I'm going to rattle off several examples of people I know or know of who did okay in marathons without doing really long runs. I got my 2:35, my best, with nothing longer than 16 miles. My college roommate ran 2:40 and change with nothing over 12 miles and fewer weekly miles than you're doing. I once talked him onto doing 15 and he hated it so much he almost quit the sport.In the late 70s a Brit called Chris Stewart was twice third at New York in 2:13 each time. For one of those races he did no single run longer than 8 miles, but 120-130 a week.

Moving to people I know of, Jim Pearson qualified for a couple Olympic Trial marathons and had the US 50 mile record for a while. His training was profiled in Runner's World and he said, "I believe in doing a weekly long run but never do because it's not convenient". But he was always well above 100 mpw. There was a thread here that had a sample of Karl Lismont's (silver in '72, bronze in '76) training. He rarely ran more than an hour because he found it boring but also was usually over 100 a week. Ian Thompson was gold medalist at the 1974 Euro Champs and Commonwealth Games Marathon and did 2:09:12. The main feature of his training that I recall seeing at the time was that he ran 30 miles on Sunday which inspired me to a few months of going about that far each week. I recently learned from a friend who knows Thompson that he did that 30 as three separate 10s. I also knew a 2:25 guy who did the same.

There is more to marathon training than just a long run. Malmo, who didn't do real badly at the marathon, has posted here several times that he thinks the long run is the least important peice of training. I don't know that I'd go that far but I do think it's importance has been overstated these days. I think overall mileage is more important. When I said all my best times came after I'd begun training for marathons I mostly meant that I'd begun doing as many miles as I could handle with the intention of running marathons.

HRE wrote:

There is more to marathon training than just a long run. Malmo, who didn't do real badly at the marathon, has posted here several times that he thinks the long run is the least important peice of training. I don't know that I'd go that far but I do think it's importance has been overstated these days.

You're misconscrewing (sic) what I said. I've probably run more 20+ mile runs than almost anyone who has ever posted here. Certainly more than guys like Dick Beardsley, Craig Virgin, Greg Meyer and Alberto Salazar.

Its better to get all of the other pieces of the puzzle together before you think about the long run. That's not too difficult to understand?

Yes concentrate on getting your shorter distances down as far as you can first.

Just don't cut mileage to much just s shorter long run.

Yes. I did misrepresent what you said. I do know that you've written that too. And I may have misrepresented my own training as well because I'd bet I'm in the same neighborhood as you in terms of number of 20 or so mile runs done. I think mostly what I wanted to say was that you can be training for marathons even if you are not doing a lot of, or maybe any, really long runs.

Our background, marathon times, and ages are similar. Personally, I’ve found I need ~14-16 weeks to train for improving my marathon PR, and around week 12-13 I’m pretty dead. I don’t think it would be smart to keep cycling that kind of training year round (for me).

As such, I spend most of the year training 5k/10k distances, and my marathon training looks very similar to those 5k/10k blocks with the exception of a longer long run (building up to 2:30 with a 30 min double on the same day) and a few longer specific workouts in the buildup (for example, building from 6, 8, to 10mi @ HM pace in the middle/as part of a 90min run spread out over like 6 weeks). I only run 1 marathon per year so I can keep focusing on improving my speed because I agree that will be our limiting factor in the marathon - at least until we plateau at the shorter distances.

I find Regularly keeping in touch with those 5k/10k speed workouts makes the longer marathon workouts and the marathon pace generally feel easier. This is just my personal experience with no basis in science so take it for what it’s worth (ie a good coach may say I’m an idiot... what do I know).

To get better at the marathon, while continuing to improve in the shorter distances, I’d recommend training as a 10k runner for most of the year. 10-12 weeks before a marathon, I’d do marathon specific training.

Your long run seems too long for someone of your ability, hence why you can’t recover in time for the next workout. Frank shorter used to do two workouts plus a long run every week, and the long run was 2 hrs or 20 miles (whichever came first). I’d stick with long runs in the 90-120 minute range (probably closer to 120) since you can repeat that week after week and have success, with maybe a couple runs slightly longer as part of a marathon preparation.

You’d be better off with 2 workouts per week and a long run that’s manageable in length, rather than 1 workout and a really long run that digs you into a hole.

What are your faster workouts like?

For a marathon, you don’t need to run much faster than 10k pace, except for strides. However, since you want to continue improving in the shorter distances, you’ll need to run at faster paces. That’s why training like a 10k runner is good for marathoners. You regularly put in work that advances your 5k-10k times, while still doing work that’s similar enough to allow an easy transition into marathon training 10-12 weeks before the race. This seems especially important for you because you don't have the typical track background of great marathoners.

The type or volume of the workouts you can do also depends on your ability level. As a 17:30 5k runner, you'd probably be whipped if you did 7-8 x 1-mile at threshold pace, for instance. You'd be better off with 4-5 reps, as well as some short speed around mile pace afterwards. Volume is important for distance runners, but don't make the mistake of running workouts beyond that which you're capable of recovering from. Don't base the number of reps you run in a workout just as a percentage of the total mileage you're running -- the two aren't really related. As you get faster, you can add more reps because a higher fitness level allows you to recover faster and absorb a higher workload.

Thanks, there is a lot to unpick here and on the other posts above... but I'm sat on a sun lounger in Turkey so I'll take my time haha!

First off, this (see bold text) is something I was thinking about a bit last night actually - I find the recovery aspect from long runs really goes up after 2hrs... Like 90-100mins feels very comfortable, with no extra recovery vs an easy day; 100-120 will leave me a bit tired; 120+ feels like I've started to dig a recovery hole; and when we get to 2:30/2:40, it's going to be a good few days until I'm up to running quickly. I know I'll be having that 'slightly drained' feeling, hanging around for a few days.

I suppose the mental battle, is that 2hrs is only 15 miles if I go genuinely easy; and only 16 for what I'd put at upper end of easy. I seem to be in this cycle where I cannot consider runs of that distance a 'long enough' run, during most weeks, when viewed in the context of marathon training.

It's like I feel the need to run 18+ (so probably 2:20+) almost every week, to feel like I'm training properly for the marathon - which multiple people above have already called out as a bad idea... I know that might sound a bit stupid, but I find it very difficult to get past it mentally - and it's those extra few miles (from say 15 to 18) which are the real recovery-killers.

Oversimplified obviously, and not considering other elements of training; but assuming good all round training, mileage in the 70mpw ball park - would long runs below be sufficient for a 12 week buildup?

15, 16, 20, 15, 16, 20, 15, 16, 20, 3wk taper

On reflection, I guess what really scares me is that the marathon is very much 'eggs in one basket', in that I can't do another two weeks later, if it goes badly... so I don't want to get to 20 miles and fall apart due to lack of extra-long runs. I guess another way of looking at it, is that if you're running 70mpw, do you break down in a marathon due to lack of long endurance training runs, or due to an overly ambitious pace?

Taking note of what others have said above, it's interesting to hear examples of people who have never gone especially long during training; but that confidence - to do a 26 mile race off nothing longer than 16 miles - is admirable! It seems a hell of a jump to me. But perhaps that's the key point? Time more important than distance in miles? Longer not always better?

Funny isn't it, if I could run 6:00 easy pace and hit 20 miles in 2hrs, I wouldn't even be posting this! One problem 3hr marathoners face, that perhaps the elites don't need to consider as much. Be very nice to always be done running in 2hrs and still hitting appropriate distances.

You can run one marathon per year and still peak for a 5K/10K in the same year. Break the year up into two 6 month training cycles. Even during your build-up for the marathon you can jump into shorter races. If you look at a Lydiard schedule you’ll see 3K, 5K, and 10K as sharpening for the marathon in the final 4 weeks or so.

It is hard to keep the qualities sharp for a wide variety of distances so I guess one need to focus the attention to certain distances. Marathon and 5k needs some different qualities, of course both need a big aerobic capacity, but 5k need in addition speed endurance and some anaerobic capacity. For Marathon you do not need to care about any anaerobic training, threshold (maybe up to 10k speed) and slower is the target. 5K is quite faster. But marathon, then you need the ability to withstand the long muscular duration on a hard surface, which is not the case for 5k

I like the idea to focus 5k/10k and then prepare for a marathon once a year and use specific training in periods adapted to the different target distance. Anyway, the anaerobic threshold is important and should be focus all the year.

Two workouts per week, with long run not being considered a workout? That means you would usually have only 1 day of recovery between your hard days. For a human male in his 30s not using PEDs that would mean having to work hard again when muscle soreness from the previous workout is at its peak.

nonary ant wrote:

Two workouts per week, with long run not being considered a workout? That means you would usually have only 1 day of recovery between your hard days. For a human male in his 30s not using PEDs that would mean having to work hard again when muscle soreness from the previous workout is at its peak.

I thought a lot of people did this? 2x workouts per week, plus a long run. If the long run is at an easy pace.

Am I mistaken that a lot of people train this way? Or is that an idealised early/mid 20's approach?

Makemegetfast wrote:

nonary ant wrote:

Two workouts per week, with long run not being considered a workout? That means you would usually have only 1 day of recovery between your hard days. For a human male in his 30s not using PEDs that would mean having to work hard again when muscle soreness from the previous workout is at its peak.

I thought a lot of people did this? 2x workouts per week, plus a long run. If the long run is at an easy pace.

Am I mistaken that a lot of people train this way? Or is that an idealised early/mid 20's approach?

As you get older, if you want to stick to 2 workouts plus long run, the cycle has to be increased from 7 days to 10-12 days. The cycle needs two easy days after the workouts, and should also include a rest day. If the long run is easy, probably only need one easy day following.

Alfie wrote:

Makemegetfast wrote:

I thought a lot of people did this? 2x workouts per week, plus a long run. If the long run is at an easy pace.

Am I mistaken that a lot of people train this way? Or is that an idealised early/mid 20's approach?

As you get older, if you want to stick to 2 workouts plus long run, the cycle has to be increased from 7 days to 10-12 days. The cycle needs two easy days after the workouts, and should also include a rest day. If the long run is easy, probably only need one easy day following.

Recovery time is pretty personal and a lot depends on how hard the workouts are. Doing something like 4x1 mile at 5k pace? That might require 2 days to recover. Doing 5x1 mile at HM pace? You might find you can come back the next day and do a decent workout. See the Jack Daniels plans for examples of that. And then there is always the options of adding quality to a long run. The old 4 miles easy, 6-8 miles at MP, 4 miles easy works for a lot of people.

Assuming a balanced training schedule, I think the 12 week buildup you laid out would be sufficient. Overall mileage seems more important than the length of any one run, however. I think your concern of bridging the gap between 16 miles and 26 miles isn't uncommon, but don't forget that on race day it probably won't feel as hard. If you were training for a 50-mile or 100-mile race, you wouldn't be doing 40-mile runs on the weekend, would you? At some point, you have to trust that the training you've been doing (sensible, balanced, and within your means) is enough. There's something about competition that elevates our performance levels and things in a real race don't feel as hard as they do in training. As long as you have a solid hydration/fueling plan during the race then you should be fine. You've completed a marathon before -- you know you can do it again! You're putting in 70 mile weeks consistently -- the problem isn't your endurance unless you cut the mileage by a ton in the weeks preceding the race.

As far as the 3 week taper... why? A peak race = fitness + freshness. If you take away the mileage too soon, you'll be fresh but you'll lose fitness and the ability to hold the faster paces you've been working on. I would reduce the overall intensity of workouts in the week or two preceding the marathon but keep the mileage high until a few days before the race (even then, don't slash it drastically, think maybe 80%). For instance, if you typically do 5 x 1-mile @threshold pace, do 3-4 reps instead. Make sure you're not speeding up on easy runs because you feel fresh though. Keep it easy.

I'm glad I did 50 races before my first marathons. The marathon was effortless and I destroyed my old 10K three months later with no speedwork except for two races in the winter.