Greg McMillan

I again read your original post; you disagree with Greg McMillan and his training methods.

He is up in the mountains teaching or coaching his runners; one just turned a 2;10.36 marathon.

You & I (most of the posters here) never had it in the heart or the mind to do what Greg has done in coaching and for sure most of us here are not driven or have the rage to master the marathon or any distance race the way his athletes are going about it.

Hard work is the name of the game, most of us are not cut out to except the facts of the matter.

Reread what I wrote before you claim I am not being positive.

What is your plan?

Ö wrote:

What I know Jones didn´t do any supplemental work.

Even in the marathon, it´s very much dependent from your lactate threshold how fast you can run and how long your glycogen stores will be sufficient. The level of lactate threshold is not automically lifted if you can bump your mileage from ~80-100mpw to 120+. I don´t have other examples now than Jones, Kwalia or Kwambai as a lower mileage marathoners, but I´m sure they are not the only top guys under 120-140mpw. "Tinman" could maybe tell you more since he has stated that 100mpw is quite enough even for a marathoner.

So Tinman, why don´t you join into this discussion? Do you disagree with McMillan´s claim that you have to run 120-140miles per week to reach optimum results on marathon, without objections?

I think you need to rethink your understanding of marathon running and training. Lactate threshold is rarely the main limiting factor nor does anyone do mileage because they think it will help lactate threshold much. Mileage is about efficiency, glycogen storage capacity and work capcity.

Most of the greatest marathoners of the 70's ran 120-150 miles a week.

Most of the greatest marathoners of the 80's ran 120-150 miles a week.

Most of the greatest marathoners of the 90's ran 120-150 miles a week.

Most of the greatest marathoners of the 2000's ran 120-150 miles per week.

Of course there are exceptions, guys and girls who do it on less, but the vast majority of world class marathoners fit into the mold I suggest and McMillan is executing on. That should tell you something.

That doesn't mean you can have success and be a good marathoner on 100 miles a week, but what McMillan and we are talking about is the world class marathoners, and there the proponderance of evidence is pretty clear - unless you are one of the rare exceptions you need to be getting in 120-150 miles a week if you want to be one of the top marathoners in the world.

You might remember that Geb struggled in his first few marathons and then he broke through and starting winning and setting records. When asked what he was did different he responded that the biggest change he made was upping his mileage from 200k (124 miles) per week to 220k (137 miles) per week.

PPS: I get it, I was just kidding -- and if I ended up as fast as Kara ... that would be a huge PR.

MPR wrote:

Or said another way: not everyone can be world class (i.e one of the best).

P.S. The 24 mile key workout - its all about glycogen storage capacity my friend, all about storage capacity.

Burning fat is inefficient during a marthon so you want top be burning primarily glycogen (much more efficient). So you better do 2 things 1) learn to store alot of it and 24 mile long runs will do that for you, and 2) you better learn how to ingest some along the way or you'll end up like Kara G. at the World Championships.

Rethink yourself, lactate threshold is the main limiting factor especially in the marathon. I am talking also about world class marathoner, you seem to think that if you don´t run 120-150mpw then you could not be a world class marathoner. Do I have to remember you about those so called "expections"? About Haile, going from 200k to 220k is a small change and it probably wasn´t the reason why did he improve, he just got the specific endurance and knowledge how to run the marathon after 1-2 of those.

Miles with running a lot slow does make you eventually slow, IF you can stay injury free. The days of just focusing on to mileage are in the past, optimizing the lactate threshold, SPECIFIC (at marathon this already is very close to LT) endurance, functional strength, and nervous system is now. These together you´ve got tremendous advantages compared to just a high mileage logging. These are all types of ENDURANCE training.

But just to make you busy tell me about these examples, their names and training programs, and the sources of information?

"Most of the greatest marathoners of the 70's ran 120-150 miles a week.

Most of the greatest marathoners of the 80's ran 120-150 miles a week.

Most of the greatest marathoners of the 90's ran 120-150 miles a week.

Most of the greatest marathoners of the 2000's ran 120-150 miles per week."

I've already acknowledged the exceptions so I won't bother rehashing that. As for lactate threshold. Tell me how its the main factor? For the world class athletes we are talking about lactate threshold is roughly their half marathon pace (4:30-4:35 per mile). They run marathons at around their aerobic threshold (4:45-4:55 per mile for these guys), making this the threshold they focus on for their SPECIFIC endurance. You do understand the difference between the 2 correct?

I'll make this real easy for you to understand.

Lets use 2 examples: Guy number #1, your 90-100 miles per week marathoner and example #2 my 120-140 mile per week marathoner.

Lets look at work capacity. For aerobic threshold work runner #1 can do about 9-11 miles in a AT tempo workout, while runner #2 can do 12-15 miles worth in a AT tempo workout. This is the same percentage of weekly mileage for each and will take about the same amount of time to recovery from it. So which one will benefit more for marathon SPECIFIC endruance, the guy running 9-11 or the guy running 12-15 miles? How about their long run, runner #1 can go about 20-23 miles in an easy pace long run, while runner #2 can go about 23-26 miles, which one will develop greater glycogen storage capacity from this workout? The run is the same percentage of their weekly mileage, so recovery from each will take about the same time.

And if you want to say that your 90-100 mile a week guy will still get in those 112-15 mile AT runs or 24-26 mile long runs on occassion, then I suggest that they can but given it is a greater percentage of their weekly mileage so it will take longer for them to recover from and so they will be able to get in less stress workouts than runner #2 (thus runner #2 still gets in more work).

Simply the guy who worked up slowly to a higher mileage will undeniably have a greater work capacity in training and that is a huge advantage in the longer races.

This greater work capacity will allow for greater development of aerobic threshold, glyocgen storage capacity and efficiency, and these are the 3 greatest factors in marathon performance.

Its very simple in reality and I thought pretty easy to follow the logic behind it. I'm not sure why you insist on advocating the exception rather than the rule, except maybe that you simply don't understand all the physiology behind it.

I won't even bother to give you the list you are asking for except to say my sources are direct conversations with a great many of them (I've been around a while) as well as direct interviews and conversations with their coaches.

As for my Geb example. The main advantage he gained from the extra 20k per week, and this directly from his interview on the subject from 3 years ago, is the extra work capacity it gave him - specificly the extra miles on his long runs and the extra miles on AT tempo runs.

Oh you don´t bother to show me your examples? Then those doesn´t mean anything.

About LT. I knew that you don´t know what the real LT is and was expecting you to show your lack of knowledge. I'll TRY to make this real easy for you to understand:

Now, I can tell you more about the real LT intensity; it´s the intensity that you can run without lactate accumulation above ~3-4mmol, and it´s possible to run at it about 90-100minutes, not 60-70 minutes like the common misconception is. Try measuring your lactate levels after about 50minutes when you run at HM pace, and it could very possibly be ALREADY above your lactate threshold point. You can run at LT up to 90-100minutes without lactate accumulation beyond the LT point, commonly ~3-4mmol. The following will happen after this; you have almost completely depleted your glycogen stores and you have to rely more and more on fat as an energy source.

This means, you and your aerobic threshold is far less a marathon performance indicator than the velocity at the REAL LT intensity. The higher the LT, the faster you can go without depleting your glycogen stores too quickly. With the LT training (this doesn´t mean training purely at LT intensities) you also have to train to improve the energy usage of fats at spesific intensity, so this is the SPESIFIC endurance, not the high mileage BASE endurance or "work capacity" training like you suggest which matters more. This is why many elites does some fast intervals RIGHT AFTER a long run at or close to marathon race pace.

Unlike you I´ve something to back up my statement thanks to Marius Bakken:

"Let me explain ; my personal experience is that the most accurate way of running "threshold training" is staying at a lactate level of around 3.0 mmol/l during the sessions (vs. about 4.0 that some literature say - but that 4.0 figure is largely based on athletes that does not have long enough endurance background. The longer you train your endurance, the lower this figure will be !) You can vary from around 2.2 to 3.3, which seems ideal.

In terms of heart rate this is approximately 80-87 %, though expect a variation from morning to afternoon of about 5 beats lower in the morning.

In terms of pace, my personal experience is that this is between your marathon pace and your half marathon pace, depending on where you are in your training cycle. In my case, the threshold before my 13.06 5k (measured 5 days before) was 2.53-54 pr km at 3.0 mmol/l, at 87-89 % of maximum heart rate (you can push this threshold heart rate higher when you are in peak shape) and I could easily stay there for the intervals. This pace would be between my marathon and half marathon pace (Circa CP 95’ for Marius).

Kind regards,

Marius"

Congrats, you can cut and paste from your favorite author. Very good. But what did you learn from it? But most importantly it does nothing to support your original claim.

You conveniently ignore the work capcity issue. Off of a base of 120-140 miles a week a runner can do more of your beloved LT than can a guy of a base of 90-100 miles a week.

Incidently I can site numerous scientists and researchers who would disagree with your beloved Marius or even demonstrate that what he is talking about is no longer LT but rather AT, so its really a game of symantics at this point.

So please explain to us how 120-140 miles a doesn't give the runner a higher work capacity, and thus an increased opportunity to work on LT, AT or any other training, than does a 90-100 mile a week runner.

Also please note McMillan isn't claiming you should get there over night, rather you should work up to it over years. But somehow you ignore the very real world work capcity issue. Please enlighten us as to how you get around that?

Okay let's use our critical thinking skills here, jerkoff. Bakken's claims actually defeat your argument. He says that his threshold pace was 2:53-2:54 per kilometer. This equals approximately 61 minutes for HM, which is probably right about what he could run for that distance. In what way does this indicate he could run up to 90 minutes at this pace? By the way he also indicates he was hitting that threshold pace in the form of intervals. What is Bakken's HM PR? Right. Oh and just so you know I've seen Bakken assign athletes he's training for the marathon long WALKS because volume is so important to the marathon, if they can't manage to run that far he wants them to at least be on their feet for a long time.

By the way at higher mileage levels your body will be forced to rely on a higher percentage of fats. And yes high mileage does increase the body's ability to absorb training, which is why all of our best 5k-10k runners aren't running 30-40 mpw, as I'm sure you would have them doing. After all if a marathoner only needs 90 mpw, and a 10k is 1/4 of a marathon....

You're an idiot. The rest of us will listen to the actual coaches that post here, not some moron who misuses a couple bad examples and doesn't even know how to understand them. Hmmm, Canova, or O? Who to trust....?

That was your attempt to make it "EASY to understand"? Sorry but I didn't understand you at all.

You claimed that the limiting factor was the Lactate threshold.

Somewhere in your easy explanation, you also say that "the velocity at the REAL LT intensity" is the better marathon performance indicator.

I don't know what to conclude -- do you recommend raising Lactate Threshold, raising velocity at Lactate Threshold, or simply redefining it as 90-100 minute race pace?

Actually, many people define LT in many ways, so best to clarify your definition upfront. I don't think there is any such thing as a "real LT", in the sense that there seem to be many definitions rather than any single consensus. I've never seen it actually defined as 60 minute race pace, but rather having that given as an easy method to estimate it.

I also don't see how Marius' statements related to yours, except to suggest your lactate threshold training intensity is easier than most people think. Does that have anything to do with marathon training? Did Marius have any great marathon success, either with him, or with athletes?

Seemingly this whole thread seems to center around Greg's statement that he "believes" athletes "should be able" to run 120-150 miles/week, as that would lead to lots of short careers. Given that Greg also said he was "trying to be smart" about how they get there, and that high mileage coaches and athletes have had great long term success in the marathon, maybe your concern isn't well founded.

Lydiard always claimed that distance didn't injure you, but speed did.

MPR claims that running 120 miles is the norm for most great marathoners. There is a recent Canova thread, where he explores a "new" trend with recent marathon winners, who only run 80-90 miles/week. The trend is "new" because the norm is to run higher mileage.

You keep preaching about this working capacity, could be called more simpler as a basic endurance. If your main goal is to reach highest possible mileage it matters, but trying to get optimum endurance where the nervous system and functional strength also are on focus, the high mileage is counterproductive against everything else. It just makes you slow in the end or injured. There´s also a limit how much you need quality training, and I´m sure that with a little less mileage you can do MORE quality than with high mileage. Only "benefit" is more base training in your system, and reasons I have stated will very possibly undo the benefits.

Somehow you ignore all but high mileage. Please enlighten us as to how you get around that?

rekrunner wrote:

That was your attempt to make it "EASY to understand"? Sorry but I didn't understand you at all.

I´m not surprised rekrunner. What can I do with it.

edumacator wrote:

Okay let's use our critical thinking skills here, jerkoff. Bakken's claims actually defeat your argument. He says that his threshold pace was 2:53-2:54 per kilometer. This equals approximately 61 minutes for HM, which is probably right about what he could run for that distance. In what way does this indicate he could run up to 90 minutes at this pace? By the way he also indicates he was hitting that threshold pace in the form of intervals.

I also knew this would come up.

Of course with intervals you can run clearly faster on LT intensity thanks to neuromuscular resting between runs and the free energy from CP system at the beginning of every working interval, but this is something that you should have figured by yourself, jerkoff.

Barry Magee once told me that he became a national class runner in New Zealand while he was doing 100 mpw but he became a world class runner when he bumped that up to 120-130. I recall Shorter once saying that he thought you needed to do 120 miles a week and you'd get to another level of fitness but that when he ran only 100 mpw he didn't perform any better than he did at 60 mpw. I found a real difference in both training effort and performance when I got to 120 or more and as many others here have pointed out, mileage in the 120-150 range, and sometimes more has been the norm for world class marathoners for decades now.

Of course you probably can find a fair number of people who ran that sort of volume and never became world class or even national class and it's also not terribly hard to find exceptions at the world class level, i.e. guys wbo did not run 120 or more mpw. But what I think MacMillan is saying with his comment is that someone wanting to be a world class marathoner needs to expect to run that sort of volume. That would be the training plan as a runner starts on their voyage. At some point they may find that they cannot do that sort of volume or they may find themselves runing well on less volume or both.

It's not that hard to find a Jack Foster, a John Farrington or a Steve Hoag becoming world class marathoners on less than 120. But it's also worth noting that it's rare to find someone running that sort of mileage at the top of the world class pile rather than on the side, so to speak.

I appreciate your appropriate post based on real life experience, and I´m not going to argue against names like Shorter or Magee. I wish these other guys here could be more open-minded too.

Like I´ve said before, if the high mileage works for you, do it, but there´s no rule about how much you should run to be at your best like McMillan seemed to claim.

Ö wrote:

I appreciate your appropriate post based on real life experience, and I´m not going to argue against names like Shorter or Magee. I wish these other guys here could be more open-minded too.

Like I´ve said before, if the high mileage works for you, do it, but there´s no rule about how much you should run to be at your best like McMillan seemed to claim.

I don't want to be snarky, but is it THAT hard for you to get that McMillan was noting an observable trend for the majority of the very best in the world. He was not saying "Without fail, I will force all of my runners to 120-150 miles a week, regardless of how they react." He is describing an accurate situation and recognizing that, in general terms, this is what most of the best did, and if you want to be one of them, then you'll probably end up doing something similar. He's frankly admitting that he's not out to reinvent the wheel.

Just an example from letsrun frontpage:

"In terms of training advice, McMillan tells you how much you need to run to be great and whether or not he thinks the Africans are beatable."

Back to the original poster: I don't think you listened to the interview. Just pulled these quotes. His whole interview was based on individualized training and it can't be pulled from a book. Im not even sure the argument you're trying to have.I don't think could have individualized Brett's training anymore then he did after explaining it in the iterview.Now tell the truth, did you actually listen to the interview?

Just to make sure we are all arguing on the same level. We keep throwing out the number "120 mpw" but what does actually mean when it comes to training? Our bodies only know Time vs Intensity. (figuring we all have around the same turn over). 120 a week could easily be seen as less than 2 hours a day for elites. If easy days were 6-6:30 pace and workouts were well below. (MP being 5:00, Threshold around 4:45, and speed at 4:40-4:30)

So 130-150 a week would be between 1:50 and 2:10 per day.

To borrow a quote, "It's dejavu all over again." McMillan is merely recycling John Kellogg's training ideology posted as a fixed link on the front page of letsrun (it's been here forever) and doing it in a place that Wejo "put on the map." Good for him, all of them.

http://www.letsrun.com/jkspeaks.php

What I don't get is, why does it have to be one or the other? The runner who sustains 120-150 miles per week year-round risks a short, stale, injury-curtailed career, albeit with a few, perhaps, brilliant performances mixed in. And he gains in running economy what he couldn't possibly with just 90 miles per week.

On the other hand, why not vary the macro and meso cycling during the year and maximize all potential stimuli and adaptive physiological mechanisms? That is to say, why not spend the summer logging big miles and long tempos in prep for a fall marathon, rest, then drop the mileage, sharpen, and kick ass on the track or in cross at shorter distances. Or do it how Ritz did it last year -- prep for a spring marathon, sharpen for a late track season?

This approach would seem to maximize longevity, minimize stalness and injury, and improve performance at all distances. I wish Hall would "get back to the track." I fear he won't even factor at the 2012 trials at the rate he's going.

I do believe it to be true that two hours of running per day at elevation is different than two hours per day at sea level. Mark Nenow used to log roughly 150 miles per week, and he was running two hours per day in Kentucky. The guy was amazing at 10k, but never seemed to put it together for the marathon.