70's marathon training

Running a lot. 90% of people running boston these days are probably doing 30 mpw.

More miles done by more people.

I think more miles and more serious runners. There seems to be pressure in young people today to get a job and start setting up their retirement. In the 70's it was more common to take some time to chase a dream, whatever it was.

Now, you hear people talking about the (lack of) money in the sport as the incentive to quit and settle down.

You young guys have ti in you. Chase your dreams for a while. When you're 50+ and you're hanging out with friends the stories will be great and your friends will respect you for it.

Hey, you could say that you were in the Olympic Trials.

They ran a lot of miles, year-round, and here's the kicker.... THEY RACED A LOT. See Bill Rodger's training logs to understand. Workouts were infrequent and nothing special, but the races were run-your-socks-off. American elites of today need to race more.

HRE wrote:

More miles done by more people.

Yep. Back then, there were a lot more roadies - many times more - who focused on longer distances and raced on the roads at least as much as they did on the track. The culture was different to the extent that the second- and third-tier types were every bit as serious about training and racing as the elites were. It seems like these days, if there isn't a guarantee of making a decent living as a pro, not as many people pursue serious marathoning, so the middle and lower tiers have dwindled in size.

As far as the training went, it was a lot of miles which included doubles 5 to 7 days per week. All the serious marathoners I knew, from the sub-2:10 guys to the guys in the high 2:20s and even a few of the slower ones, were regularly running between 100 and 130 per week - something like 5-6 in the A.M., 10-13 P.M. on most days. Some did even more. The bread-and-butter hard workouts were fairly long (usually around an hour, sometimes longer) runs at marathon goal pace or faster. Ten to twelve miles at a good strong pace was a staple.

There were also more opportunities to race longer distances. It's not impossible now to find races longer than half marathons but shorter than marathons but it's close to it. working your way to a marathon with a couple hard races at 15-20 miles was really useful.

This leads to another difference. Races then were put on so that people could race. The goal was not to raise money for charities or attract a bigger field than other races in your region had. Smaller, faster fields made it logistically easier to put on races like that, generally in more remote areas with less traffic.

Most of the courses were short back then. They didn't have the course-measuring technology that we have now.

this is what they did

1. miles make champions

2. many hard aerobic runs, fast distance runs

3. race

I blame the East Africans. In the 1970s, distance running was a US/UK/Euro sport. Coe/Vigil/Smith/Rodgers/Salazar/Shorter were the big names. Also, distance running was a big deal in the US. I remember watching gun to tape coverage of NY and Boston live on network TV.

Runners in the US trained hard because they thought they might have a shot at breaking through and becoming the next Bill Rodgers. Now, our best runners are chewed up and spat out at every distance by the Kenyans. The average quality post-collegiate runner knows that they have no chance of ever breaking through and being a successful pro. All they can get out of a sub 2:20 marathon is a chance to run the US trials.

Will concur w/previous posters (I'm 49 & saw this first-hand) and add an example. When I was considering my first marathon in '93, an older co-worker game me his training schedule, from Feb. 1981 Runner's World, Titled "How to Train for Your First Marathon"

Twelve weeks, 6 days a week, weekly mileage of 25/28/32/36/40/44/48/52/56/60/60/40. Longest long run of 18 mi (weeks 9 & 11), but 10+ miles twice or thrice per week in weeks 6 through 11. Races recommended in weeks 4 and 8. "Pickups" only speed workout recommended, sprinkled lightly in latter half of the schedule.

The assumption was you were in shape enough to handle this schedule-- and experienced enough in other races to ably move up to the marathon distance. Imagine a beginner's program like that today!

(For the record, I toned this one down. My co-worker, who ran the Twin Cities Marathon in 1982 using this schedule [without complaint], ran a 3:42 in his early 40s.)

And how do you know about these short courses? Did you race on them? Did you measure them? Do you have a list of courses from those years that were later measured with current measuring technology and found short?

Some courses were short. Most weren't. Most of the ones that were short were not marathon courses. The marathon was the distance road racers focused on and they were very unhappy when they found they'd run on a short course. Runner's World kept lists of marathons and which ones were not on accurate courses and by 1979 those inaccurate oenes were all but gone, New York being one notable exception.

The technology is different now but mewasuring a stretch of road accurately is really not that hard to do and well within the capabilities of a society that had put people on the moon and was transplanting internal organs.

techk wrote:

Most of the courses were short back then. They didn't have the course-measuring technology that we have now.

The OP had Boston w/ 53 under... the Park, but the amount it was short was trivial compared to the type of numbers we are talking about.

If that course is correct then your comment is not only unsupported but irrelevant. As far as I know, there has never been an issue with the measurement of Boston. NYC did not do the tangents in

You certainly don't have to believe me. It's no skin off of my back.