Marathon Training On Low Volume???

Richard_ wrote:

Crank,

Still no facts/data/research to support your previous assumptions (and your more recently stated opinions)? You keep spitting out your opinions and plenty of insults, but are lacking in factual data. It appears that you have chosen to hurl insults my way until you prove your argument. Who knows, maybe you really will prove me wrong by insulting me. And perhaps it's just me, but do you really expect us to believe that name calling and insults are part of a serious discussion?

Let's talk again when you stop using insults as a debate tactic and decide to engage in actual intelligent, substantive discussion. Until then, should I just expect more insults?

Nice try. Your admitted two-pronged function here is to prove that all but the most genetically gifted runners can reach their potential on three runs a week and that elite marathoners exist who have reached their potential on 50 miles week. You have stated the former EXPLICITLY and have implied the latter. When challenged, you have provided NO SUPPORT for these ideas. You are not even CAPABLE of "substantive discussion" because your ideas are just that - ideas; you cannot back them up and in fact you don't even try.

I don't need to present "data" about the number of people who do better running daily or almost daily; this is common knowledge that has been in the public domain for decades. You might as well be demanding that I "prove" that hoopsters can improve their free throw shooting by practicing more. The worst part? As much of a f***ing numbskull as you are, you KNOW you're doing this. Emitting static is the universal last refuge of the undiluted idiot with no hand to show, and only makes you an even greater target of scorn.

Once again, your impugning my assumptions and complaining of my hostiliy are strictly diversionary measures and they have you looking increasingly weak-minded, if that is even possible.

For the last time, PROVE that the average runner will achieve maximum gains on ridiculously limited training. Show EVIDENCE that runners exist who have become world-class marathoners on low mileage. If you can do neither of these things, it matters not hoiw much of an asshole I am, because the fact remains that you are beyond clueless. Can't you develop a rabid interest in cycling or cricket or underwater sodomy or something and go bug those athletes so that distance runners don't have to deal with your bullshit any longer?

Dan Moriarity wrote:

Richard can quote all the scientific studies he wants

That's MIS-quote to you, buddy! Not are the studies Richard quotes upon again finding himself wildly irrelevant, but he doesn't understand them to begin with. The only thing he's good at is slinging around buzzwords and a bit of ex-phys terminology; ask him specifics and he can only ejaculate nonsense like "you appear to be incorrect," "you haven't shown any studies to the contrary," "I prefer substantive discourse," an so on. He's good for yuks, though, so I hope the dumbf*** doesn't disappear.

ie 50 Miles Per Week?

Some of us have neither the time or make-up for 100 MPW or 80 MPW. (And no, it's not laziness.) So, should those types just nix the idea of a good Marathon if 50 MPW is their modus operandi?

S-32k +

M-no run

T-10k ish

W-10k ish

T-10k ish

F-10k ish

S-no run

Isn't this a great Marathon program? And not just for mid packers. For 2:30-somethings.

Are there any "elite" Marathoners out there who train 50 MPW?

Cheers

GILT

yeah i can almost guarantee no "ELITE" marathoners are running 50 miles a week unless they have an incredbile amount of talent.

Someone I know says a coach named John Babbington ran a 2:45 on 25 MPW many years ago during his competitive days.

A 50 mile would could work out as follows for those with limited time (numbers are miles per day):

20 5 5 10 5 5 optional day

That is actually a pretty decent program to cover a variety of distances if you move the optional day to midweek and added mile repeats.

Tim Noakes claimes in his book that Gert Thuys runs 140K per week, which probably makes him the lowest mileage top marathoner. He's also the fastest elite marathoner in the world, based on top 5 average times. He apparently does 3 hard track sessions plus a long run--in other words more like a 1500/5000 elite. I think if I was doing it, this is the kind of plan I'd follow, and I'd probably email Noakes to see if there might be more details.

The Oubre ran 2:39 off of 30 to 40 miles per week.

I just finished writing a new plan that follows something similar to what Daniels prescribes in his new book. It contains two quality days a week both of which have a fair amount of marathon paced and threshold paced runs in them. The longest run is 18 miles, but 9 of it is at marathon pace and the other quality day is two runs totaling about 2 hours with either a few miles of threshold running or some other quality work.

I think the top mileage is just over 70 miles or about 9 hours of running. But could be scaled back to 50 miles if need be. Just leave most of the quality mileage in there.

Maybe 16(8 mp), off, 8, 10(4AT), off, 8, 8. Just be sure and include some strides after your easy runs or after the AT running midweek.

GILT wrote:

Are there any "elite" Marathoners out there who train 50 MPW?

for sure there must be elites who have occassionally dipped down that low for one reason or another. but not to run their best.

no one runs their BEST marathon on 50 miles a week. except in the case where more miles would cause you to be injured and not even make it to the starting line, to run your best you need more.

if you just want to run an "OK" or a "good" marathon, that is different.

nopers wrote:

GILT wrote:

Are there any "elite" Marathoners out there who train 50 MPW?

for sure there must be elites who have occassionally dipped down that low for one reason or another. but not to run their best.

no one runs their BEST marathon on 50 miles a week. except in the case where more miles would cause you to be injured and not even make it to the starting line, to run your best you need more.

if you just want to run an "OK" or a "good" marathon, that is different.

I was waiting for the low mileage bashing. Surprised it took so long.

Speed Kills wrote:

Tim Noakes claimes in his book that Gert Thuys runs 140K per week, which probably makes him the lowest mileage top marathoner. He's also the fastest elite marathoner in the world, based on top 5 average times. He apparently does 3 hard track sessions plus a long run--in other words more like a 1500/5000 elite. I think if I was doing it, this is the kind of plan I'd follow, and I'd probably email Noakes to see if there might be more details.

the same with steve jones, no 120 mile weeks but lots of hard fartleks/track sessions and "tempos".

Do 2 workouts and a long run and you'll be fine.

Ron Hill won the Enschede (sp?) marathon off around 50-70MPW during one phase. He disregarded this and continued with heavy mileage. It is my understanding that he today cannot cover more than 30MPW owing to his immune system being shot. He was reknowned for heavy training and minimal tapering along with that 26 year consecutive days running streak.

I can run OK with 45-50 miles per week, it is usually abot 10 to 15 minutes slower than if I really train.

GILT,

\"More recently, researchers in South Africa tested 20 of the fastest runners in that country (1). To be included in this study, an athlete needed to have run a mile in under 4 minutes, 3k faster than 8:20 minutes, or a 5k in less than 14 minutes. Even though the qualifying standards to be included in the study were set for distances of 5k and below, some very distinguished long distance runners made the grade. Former world half-marathon record holder Matthews Temane, Berlin Marathon winner Xolile Yawa, 2:08 marathoner Zithuele Sinqe, and New York Marathon champion William Mtolo all participated in this research(2). All of the runners in this study were training intensely and competing actively. One of the more significant findings was that the average weekly training mileage for the runners was just 50-60 miles.\"

http://www.powerrunning.com/Results.htm

I ran 2:24 doing 45 miles per week. 20 miler every weekend included in that 45 miles

There's a HUGE (read: HUGE) difference between what is NORMAL and what is an OUTLIER. Every so called "scientist" should know this Mr. Richard. If you polled the top 100 marathoners in the world 90% would be putting in 100+ miles a week at SOME POINT during their training.

You simply CAN'T run your BEST marathon without running over 100 miles a week at SOME POINT in your training. Read: I'm not saying you need to run 100 miles a week every week. I'm saying you need to put in that much at some point during the year (3-4 month base, at the end of your base, something like that). Of course there are a few exceptions.

One or two examples do not make a strong case Mr. Richard.

Richard_ wrote:

"More recently, researchers in South Africa tested 20 of the fastest runners in that country (1). To be included in this study, an athlete needed to have run a mile in under 4 minutes, 3k faster than 8:20 minutes, or a 5k in less than 14 minutes. Even though the qualifying standards to be included in the study were set for distances of 5k and below, some very distinguished long distance runners made the grade. Former world half-marathon record holder Matthews Temane, Berlin Marathon winner Xolile Yawa, 2:08 marathoner Zithuele Sinqe, and New York Marathon champion William Mtolo all participated in this research(2). One of the more significant findings was that the average weekly training mileage for the runners was just 50-60 miles."

Typical misleading input from Richard_.

The topic here is racing a marathon on limited mileage. The paragraph Richard_ posted tells us two things, both of them meaningless in terms of this topic: One, that three world-class marathoners managed to break 14:00 for 5K and/or 8:20 for 3K and/or 4:00 for the mile -- not only unsurprising but a virtual given; and two, that the entire group of runners studied, not the marathoners alone, averaged 50 to 60 miles a week. I'd bet good money that this average resulted from the 17 non-marathoners putting in around 50 to 55 miles a week while the three marathoners dis considerably more than that.

So until Richard_ can provide training logs or credible testimonials regarding the training of Yawa, Sinqe and Mtola demonstrating that the members of this trio all ran low mileage, he'll remain enmeshed in his usual biased and nonsensical babbling.

BS in Ex Sci,I certainly don't disagree there is a big difference between normal and outlier - if fact, the fact that both exist could reasonably be said to be a centerpiece of my training philosophy. I certainly believe a normal distribution curve exists (as you do with your reference to normal and outlier).

BS in Ex Sci wrote:

You simply CAN'T run your BEST marathon without running over 100 miles a week at SOME POINT in your training. Read: I'm not saying you need to run 100 miles a week every week. I'm saying you need to put in that much at some point during the year (3-4 month base, at the end of your base, something like that). Of course there are a few exceptions.

If, as you imply, a normal distribution curve exists then why would everyone be required to run 100 mpw at some point in their training in order to do their best in a marathon? Where does the requirement to run 100mpw fall on the distribution curve? Your statement that this requirement applies basically to everyone doesn't seem to be congruent with a belief in a distribution curve.

Also, I absolutely agree that one or two cases do not make a strong case. I believe the vast majority of elite runners do indeed run high mileage. I was simply answering the question as to whether any elites had ever done so on 50 mpw, not whether many or most elites had done so.

Regards,

Crank,

Interesting point. I will check the study to see what additional details are available.

Regards,