You hear lots about the high mileage guys marathon training but what do you guys think the lowest possible weekly mileage is while still being fit enough to run 2:16:00
And what would that week look like? Bulky tempos 2 days a week and hard 20 milers every weekend? Bike every other day?
You hear lots about the high mileage guys marathon training but what do you guys think the lowest possible weekly mileage is while still being fit enough to run 2:16:00
And what would that week look like? Bulky tempos 2 days a week and hard 20 milers every weekend? Bike every other day?
I believe Lagat ran 60 mpw even in marathon training? He ran 2:12 at age 44
You hear lots about the high mileage guys marathon training but what do you guys think the lowest possible weekly mileage is while still being fit enough to run 2:16:00
And what would that week look like? Bulky tempos 2 days a week and hard 20 milers every weekend? Bike every other day?
I believe Tony Sandoval did it on around 40/week back in the day.
You hear lots about the high mileage guys marathon training but what do you guys think the lowest possible weekly mileage is while still being fit enough to run 2:16:00
And what would that week look like? Bulky tempos 2 days a week and hard 20 milers every weekend? Bike every other day?
Well it’s gonna be a lot different for me than it would be for Connor Mantz
You hear lots about the high mileage guys marathon training but what do you guys think the lowest possible weekly mileage is while still being fit enough to run 2:16:00
And what would that week look like? Bulky tempos 2 days a week and hard 20 milers every weekend? Bike every other day?
Jack Foster was doing 50 or so at times and was under 2:15. Sometimes he'd get to 70 or so. He ran at a pretty good clip over challenging terrain. I think the two consistent features were a long run of 15 or more miles and a session of mile reps, up to nine but not always, done on a horse track. He was doing more than that when he did his 2:11 but that was an unusual stretch of time for him.
Ron Hill ran 2:15:59 at Enschede, a new course record, in 1975 on something like 56 miles a week. But that was at the end of a rest period. At that time of his career he would get up to 90 or so. I've written here before about a friend, Bernie Allen, who set the previous record at Enschede four years earlier, 2:16:57 who was doing 60-70 in the lead up. That was high mileage for him. He did a 20 at maybe six minute pace weekly, a couple 10s working toward race pace and sometimes a session of mile reps.
Renato canova often talked about that runners who developed their "aerobic house" has much less to gain from increased volume and much more to gain from a more specific training.. which for the marathon is more intense than the intensity used to accumulate volume.. so yea, it will result in a lowered volume
most guys have more to gain *long term* from accumulating more volume, as they are more likely far off from their aerobic celing
You hear lots about the high mileage guys marathon training but what do you guys think the lowest possible weekly mileage is while still being fit enough to run 2:16:00
And what would that week look like? Bulky tempos 2 days a week and hard 20 milers every weekend? Bike every other day?
I believe Lagat ran 60 mpw even in marathon training? He ran 2:12 at age 44
Cheat code unlocked.
I don't think this is a great premise because, generally, it's going to take most people consistent 80-100+ mpw to get there. The outliers that can do it on less are 1) underperforming at the distance or 2) ran ridiculously fast at shorter distances.
I'm not sure being a 12:5x 5k runner is the answer you're looking for OP, but that's the guy who can go out and run 2:15 off of whatever mileage they're at. I doubt there is someone legitimately running 50ish mpw that can do it, at least without more/less training like a pro triathlete & supplementing mileage in a major way.
I believe Lagat ran 60 mpw even in marathon training? He ran 2:12 at age 44
Cheat code unlocked.
I don't think this is a great premise because, generally, it's going to take most people consistent 80-100+ mpw to get there. The outliers that can do it on less are 1) underperforming at the distance or 2) ran ridiculously fast at shorter distances.
I'm not sure being a 12:5x 5k runner is the answer you're looking for OP, but that's the guy who can go out and run 2:15 off of whatever mileage they're at. I doubt there is someone legitimately running 50ish mpw that can do it, at least without more/less training like a pro triathlete & supplementing mileage in a major way.
I never quite understand the point of these "lowest mileage to fun however fast" threads. I do find them interesting just as general discussions but if the people starting them are thinking they can get something like a Trials qualifier doing that amount of running they're probably going to be disappointed.
I agree with you, someone getting a Trials qualifying time on something like 60 miles a week will likely be able to go a lot faster on more running. But neither Jack Foster nor Bernie Allen ever cross trained like pro triathletes. Jack did a bit of weight lifting. Bernie did nothing but run. However, when Jack ran that 2:11 he was up around 100 miles a week and Bernie, 12 years after his 2:16 on 60-70 in what was his 97th or 98th marathon ran 2:15:31 on 120 a week.
I think the point here is that if you're good enough to get a Trials qualifier on pretty low volume you probably have a good bit of natural ability but could go faster if you ran more. The best answer to a question like the one posed by the OP is "Who are you thinking of?"
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
addition
All good points in here. I should've added to my post that it's also a bit of a narrow premise. My half marathon PB came off of relatively low mileage (40-50mpw, maybe even a little less), but I was in full triathlon training, and I had recently started that switch and was coming off of years of 80-100mpw. I had been dealing with some injuries that likely prevented me from racing to full potential. I doubt I was in better shape off of the lower mileage but I was healthy enough to race and still had a big running base. Now, a few years later, I don't think I could touch my open running times now that I'm around 30ish mpw year round (+ 200ish bike & 20kish swim). I could come reasonably close, but I benefited in a small window of time when I had come off of the biggest mileage of my life, backed off that mileage, upped the cross training, & got myself healthy. Perfect storm of conditions. I wouldn't make the conclusion that lower mileage is the reason I ran my PB. If I ever wanted to lower my PB I would have to start running a lot more & I would have to stay healthy.
I'm sure there are OTQ types that hit their times off of a relatively low block of mileage, maybe coming off of an injury. What was their previous block like? The block before that? How much cross training did they do? It's very rare to just hit a fast time on consistently low-ish mileage + 0 cross training. &, even if someone can come up with some examples, I'd argue they're not tapped out so how much does it even matter? I don't want to say that it's not impressive to run less than your potential. Everyone has different constraints. But I'm much more inclined to get excited about the runner that puts in 100mpw for a non-elite time versus someone who runs fast but maybe chooses not to train as much, even if they have the ability to. Everyone has different amounts of talents. It's frustrating that people can do a lot less than what it takes me to run a 2:3x marathon. I wish I could run an OTQ time, but I can't. If I had the ability to run 2:3x on a lot less, I would be putting in the miles to run a lot faster. So take the anecdotes here with a grain of salt. There really aren't short cuts in running. Some people achieve faster results with less training. Often times, those people could run faster with optimized training. There might be some who can lean on quality to get to similar results. 5-6 runs/week with more workouts/less easy running. I still think that has its limits.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.