Olympic Trials Marathon Training

Hey I hate to say this, but if you are only running 60 mpw you are not really in the "elite" category. I hate to say it, but unless you bump your mileage up and do a good amount of quality speed work in the next couple of months, then 2:35 ain't gonnna cut it.

I mean this with all sincerity. Up the mileage to 80 and then do some speed work (1 mile repeats/1200m repeats) before the race and then go for it. I think you should still try to your heart's content, but be skeptical.

Yeah, I realize its a little rediculous, but what the hell might as well try. Im already up to 65 with more than 3 months till Boston, and I plan on getting to 100. Dont really think I have a shot for the trials at Boston, but Im hoping it will put me in a good position for qualifying for Chicago. Thanks for the input though. Ill try and get some more speed in.

skip boston and train! if you want a shot at least

only 53 Americans have run under that time so far - and we sure as hell aren't gonna tell you how we did it

My first marathon was 2:44 when I was 20.

My PR is now 2:18.

I suggest that you make every sacrifice imaginable in order to run more miles. 100 MPW is optimum, but you need to run about 20 of those 100 miles at a good enough pace to get down to 5:15 per mile.

I wish you well on your journey.

Jason

It's gonna take time. 2016 trials might be a better shot for you. You have plenty of time. Focus on sub 2:30 for now.

High Plains Drifter wrote:

It's gonna take time. 2016 trials might be a better shot for you. You have plenty of time. Focus on sub 2:30 for now.

finally somebody on this thread has a brain. 2:35 is pretty good but is many steps below a 2:19. you wont shed 16 minutes easily. its going to take time if happen at all. the 65mpw jump to 100 is a huge jump. you will be better off taking your time to build up more slowly.

your current marathon pace is 5:56. you need a 5:18 pace. big difference. youre going to need some speed to get there. lots of tempos, mile repeats, and training races

My first marathon was just under 2:40, at the age of 22. I didn't break 2:30 until my fourth marathon, at the age of 24. After some years of very sporadic training and racing during my mid- to late-20s, I ran 2:20, then 2:19, then 2:18, all on record-quality courses, and all after turning 30.

People will give you all kinds of advice about interval workouts and such, but you'll almost certainly get your biggest bang for the buck by focusing on increasing training mileage. My biggest improvement came during a period of absolutely no racing, interval training, or speedwork -- just putting in as much mileage as I could handle. The only really high-intensity training I did during that time was "cross-training," primarily pool-running, along with some stationary cycling. The focus was on increasing and maintaining metabolic stress while minimizing the kinds of musculosketetal stresses that lead to injury or, at the least, require periods of reduced training volume.

If you are serious about qualifying for the trials for the 2012 team, you will -- in my opinion -- maximize your chances by avoiding the distractions of various intermediate racing goals along the way, focusing entirely on that single goal. Most people don't do that. They want to run lots of races along the way, sometimes just because they want to check out their progress. Although it is certainly possible to improve tremendously in a program that includes regular racing -- indeed, that's a very typical approach -- I don't believe that it is the optimal use of your time and energy in your particular circumstances and for your particular goal of qualifying for the upcoming Olympic trials. You need a sustained period of the kind of metabolic stress and gradual adaptation to musculoskeletal stress that comes from high-volume training without the loading forces and training interruptions or volume fluctuations that characterize most programs that include regular racing. Also, if you have a very busy schedule outside of running, you will find that regular racing is an extremely inefficient use of your time if you're trying to maintain high training volume.

I would suggest that your first training goal should be to increase training volume to 100 mpw or more. Don't worry about pace; just worry about volume and injury-avoidance. After you adapt to the increased volume, you can increase training pace, but continue to stay away from higher-intensity interval training and racing. You can add in long-interval sessions (like mile repeats) later, but you're nowhere near the point where that would be optimal right now for the rather ambitious goal that you've set for yourself. Even then, I would probably choose to introduce "tempo" or "threshold" training (at an intensity that may approach half-marathon pace) before interval training.

For what it is worth, my experience in marathoning has had me dropping 3-4 minutes in time for every 10 extra miles I worked in during base. By that loose theory, you have quite a bit of improvement ahead of you.

I think racing a spring marathon is a good idea. Experience pays in the marathon.

Ten miles a week, on average I meant.

OP, THIS is very good advice. You need to respect the marathon enough to understand that it takes time to develop and eventually race a 2:19. That time is in a completely different stratosphere from 2:35.That being said, you might have a legit shot at eventually running that fast, but not in time for the trials in 2012, in my opinion. Focusing on 2016 and all the little landmarks along the way to a time like that is a much smarter way to go. You were asking what the harm is in trying to qualify for the trials in 2012 is? Well, go out at 2:19 pace ill-prepared, crawl home in a 3:10, and you will find out just how much harm you can do to yourself, both to your short and long term goals.Again, you don't have to fear the marathon and 2:19 goal, but you would do damn well to RESPECT it and train accordingly.

Lydiard's 0 - 100 says (starting at 66 because that is where you are):

66 > 78 > 90 > 100

This seems a bit quick so I have adapted with:

66 > 73 > 78 > 84 > 90 > 100

Since you are only twenty and have no previous high mileage background I would go:

66, 66, 73, 73, 66, 84, 84, 66, 90, 90, 73, 100, 100... one cut-back week a month.

This would overlap with Boston

I mostly agree with A's #.

Yes, get your mileage up as high and as consistent as possible. 100 mph is a good range to aim for. Your mileage and consistency should be your primary objective.

I feel that racing is fine, and helpful, though it's probably a good idea at the beginning to skip racing for the first several months, while you're focusing on increasing your mileage. Eliminate anything that interferes with this objective.

Then I would add a race every two weeks, or every week, or once a month, whatever you can handle while keeping your mileage consistent. Once you are used to the mileage, the races should not phase you at all and will help.

I would most definitely not do any repetitions or interval training.

Make sure you are eating enough carbohydrates, before, during and right after your running, and drink plenty of water.

So, according to the McMillan Running Calculator, equivalent performances for a 2:19 marathon are 14:15 for 5k, 29:37 for 10k and 1:05:54 for a half marathon. I'm not saying you have to run these before you run 2:19, but unless you've been in the neighborhood of, oh say, 14:45, 30:30 and 1:08, I wouldn't eliminate all intervals and reps from your training.

If you have run close to those equivalent times, then you would mainly need to do the volume to extend that fitness to the marathon. If you haven't, you'll need to get your aerobic and lactate threshold paces down to something in the neighborhood of 5:20 and 5:00, and to do that, you'll need higher volume, as others have stated. You'll also need a variety of tempo runs, tempo repeats, and long intervals.

However, including some form of short, fast reps with plenty of recovery, or hill sprints will do wonders for your running economy and help you build stamina at those threshold paces by making it easier to run that pace in the first place. These shouldn't be the main focus, and you can do them at the end of other workouts or after easy runs, but try not to neglect them entirely.

MAYEROFF wrote:

My first marathon was 2:44 when I was 20.

My PR is now 2:18.

I suggest that you make every sacrifice imaginable in order to run more miles. 100 MPW is optimum, but you need to run about 20 of those 100 miles at a good enough pace to get down to 5:15 per mile.

I wish you well on your journey.

Jason

Hey, I stumbled upon your running log one day by accident, and have been following it ever since. Very impressive, and you are a great role model. Would you say the biggest thing that has helped you improve is the mileage? And if you don't mind me asking, how much do you think sleep plays a role?

Thanks!

Oh wow, sorry about that. I just realized you are a different Jason than the one I've been following. You have the same PR and the same training characteristics. Anyway, my comments still apply to you. 2:18 is impressive.

You and I appear to have very different views about this.

Of course, if the original poster is already a 30-minute 10k runner, there are all kinds of programs that can get him to where he wants to go. Just bump up the volume, include some long runs, and you're pretty darn close to where you want to be.

But if the original poster is like I was -- essentially, a a mid-2:30s marathoner and 33-minute 10k runner at 60 mpw who wants to make a dramatic jump in marathon performance in a fairly short period of time -- I believe that the foundation of a sustained period of high-volume aerobic training, without the musculoskeletal stresses associated with short reps and intervals, provides a quicker and surer approach. The metabolic and musculoskeletal stresses associated with moving from a max of 60 mpw to a consistent 100+ mpw within a few months are very substantial for most people, even without reps and intervals. In my view, including regular sessions of reps and intervals throughout the entire training cycle is likely to result in either less than optimal training volume or a much longer time to achieve the level of fitness required to reach the goal.

Having a PR of 2:19:35 I can tell you this. It is NOT easy to run a 2:19 and even harder to do it consistently. What I would love to hear is Renaldo Canova's view on this young man's goal of going from a 2:35:56 to 2:19:00. I, for one, know it is possible and like the other posters have stated, very consistent high mileage and not over racing are very important. The 'equivalent' charts are only guesstimations, don't rely on them, they surely cannot dictate what your mental capabilities are. My half best of 1:07:06 is 'only' equivalent to a 2:21 yet ran 2:19 at my best running. Believe in yourself, have an unshatterable focus to get past your limits, on the right day, it will happen and don't give up when it doesn't, you learn nothing from success but alot more from the failures (if you want to call it that) Good luck. Nate

Thanks for all the advice. I realize that getting down from a 2:35 to a 2:19 is a huge jump, but I will be on a ship 6 months out of the year once a graduate in 2012, so Im thinking this might be it(Currently at the Naval Academy). Right now my workouts consist of long tempo runs in the range of 11-16 miles, which I generally hold a 5:30ish pace for, and intervals ranging from 3x3mile repeats to 3 mile ladders. I can get below 5 for 2 miles, but once I drop below 5:10 I fall off after about 3-4 miles. Ive done high mileage weeks in the past. My HS coach had us doing 100+ mile weeks every summer, but due to nagging injuries and school/military duties I generally hover at 50 miles a week at about a 5:40 pace. I can run 5:40's comfortably for my normal training runs (9-10). Not really sure where I am going with all this, but maybe the extra info will help keep the ideas rolling.