Why don't we just go back to the 1970s-early 80s for the running part of our training methods for marathon?

Just wow... wrote:

justthefacts wrote:

They (we) did know what we were doing. It was not the stone age.

Not insinuating that. Quite the contrary, as the results spoke for themselves, but all the science behind it wasn't hashed out (my implication in the "unknowingly" comment) and these super-intricate, ultra-precise models now being followed seem to have taken over from good old common-sense based on what worked in the past.

This is 100% true for running and practically everything else in life.

Lootingisaright wrote:

yes , science and planing are fake. just do it by your gut

See, that's the problem, putting process ahead of results.

Yokohama wrote:

I think there were different groups back then as today. Back the FS,BR guys were doing the big miles and even the subs, and sub subs were doing the big miles. Today maybe its just the elite, while for everyone else maybe the trade off just isn't worth it anymore. As such 50,60,70,80 miles a week maybe is all they want to do while the sub and sub sub were willing to hit 100+ back then. All the new tech stuff and training plans are just a result of the industry catering to the explosion of the masses.

There were groups doing big miles but loads of people were doing big miles on their own too. We probably had at least ten guys in my club who were doing 100 or more a week at any given time all on top of having jobs and in some cases families. Someone else mentioned that the top guys in the US, the pros, are still doing that sort of volume and I think he's right. What was different in the old days was the really big number of people who were below national class also doing that sort of volume which is why we don't have the sort of depth that we had thirty plus years ago. As you mention, there's been an industry that's grown up trying to sell serious and semi serious non professional runners that there are books, training plans, shoes, supplements and gadgets that can get them to faster times without spending gobs of time on actual running.

Kwirqy wrote:

High school runners are better now than in the 70s, the talent is still there. The difference is no 20-somethings see glory on the roads.

This seems to be a lot of it. It's a depth problem. In the seventies, there was always a group of guys at the park ready to do the miles and take newbies under the wing. And there were a lot more races that a young person could afford to enter. No finisher medals or tech t's, but a semi-accurate course and a lite beer at the finish made for a fun time. Races these days are such a production and it's hardly worth the trouble to find parking. A race used to be a chance to meet up with friends and race. Now it's all a circus that leaves one feeling a bit ripped off. If I was in my twenties, I'd find something else to do, too.

Petticoat Junction wrote:

People, including runners, were mentally tougher in the 70s and early 80s.

As someone who grew up in the 70s, I can assure you that is not what my parent's generation thought.

Agree! it is very easy to over complicate running and some people - coaches, magazine editors - have a vested interest in doing exactly that. For an endurance event at least 90% of it is simply lacing up the shoes and getting out of the door every day. If you run a variety of distances at different speeds you are going to get very fit if you stick at it long enough.

Some very complicated things happen when you run, physiologically speaking. But some very interesting things are happening to my body and brain as I sit here and type this - I don't have to have a PhD in the subject in order to perform the task.

You are 100% correct. I knew dozens of guys with full time jobs running 100+ miles per week. Members of the Millrose AA, CPTC, NYAC, WRR, and as you said the depth of talent in the races was incredible. You had to fun fast to crack the top 100 at Boston or New York marathons.

Running these big races has become a social event today as most are not willing to do the work to see how fast they can run a Marathon. Instead they do it to finish in four hours or more, which is fine, but that was not the goal in the 70s and 80s.

Read about Bill Squires training with the Boston Track Club.

It's all still applicable today. Heck we're doing the same thing we just call it something else.

It was pretty simple back in the day. We raced in college and then took to the roads afterward. We just ran twice a day, did 20-25 mile long runs, got in 90-110 miles a week, did 880 and mile repeats, ran hills, did speed work, ran stride outs and did drills often, coached ourselves and raced varied distances. I did this in grad school after running 14:46/30:28 my senior year and, in my first serious marathon, ran 2:22. It could have been even faster, but I had zero calories beforehand and all there was along the way was water to drink - no Gatorade, no gels. I was just a good southeast U.S. regional runner. But there were lots of us and we all competed and ran our best just as the elites did. How many of us were doing this? For example, at the 1983 Gasparilla 15k, at age 25 when I was out of grad school and working full time as a CPA, I ran a 47:25, about 5:05 pace per mile. This was good for 81st place overall and only 49th in the 25-29 age group. It was a different road racing world back then and will never be like that because of societal and demographic trends.

Back in the day, lots of people would train like animals because it was possible to win races and make a few bucks even if you worked a full time job. Now, there are fewer races with good money and the ones that do have good money also have a dozen E. Africans. For your average post collegiate runner, there is no point in trying to train hard because there so few good races and are piles of E. Africans at the good races. So, the pool of pro level runners is now very small because it is now assumed that you have to be sponsored to make it worth bothering with training hard.

BackInTheDay wrote: It was a different road racing world back then and will never be like that because of societal and demographic trends.

Indeed.

What you'd really need to have as much elite and sub-elite depth as there was in the 70s and early 80s is another baby boom. Simple as that, really. Same as in every other sport.

Just wow... wrote:

Look how well it worked for guys back in the 70's. Now imagine if they had all the modern nutritional and supplement methods of today, as well as the recovery therapies, modern strength and conditioning methods, physical therapy modalities, even current state of the art footwear.

Consider the counterfactual: Perhaps the depth and success was a result of *not* having "modern strength and conditioning methods, physical therapy modalities, even current state of the art footwear".

A cacophony of new modalities to supposedly give one an edge and get/stay healthy likely do just the opposite in the majority of cases. These transient externals inhibit the development of the internal barometer that is crucial to consistent improvement in health and performance.

'It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles"

In running, we ourselves are both our own army and our own enemy. To fully "know thyself" gives one the tools to get better and better and better.

Shorter knew himself, Rodgers knew himself, Meyer knew himself, etc. Today, the hundreds of Kenyans that could make our marathon squad definitely know themselves (heck, in Kenya, they're basically training like these guys but with a better diet). I'd argue that sense of self-understanding comes precisely from not having ten different voices telling you to add this set of plyometrics, or to do 3 sets of 8 reps of these weights (because 12 would ruin your training!), or to irritate your irritated muscle with this electric stim, ultrasound, and ice (helping not hurting, right?). And footwear? Maybe coming up as a runner with a simple sheet of foam under your foot allows one to move more naturally and develop more robust mechanics?

This isn't to say what those dudes were doing was perfect and that many things we know now could have helped them a small bit (I suspect maybe some nutritional attention would be the biggest player). The point is that these externals now take up way too much mental real estate in both training planning and stress. They should be post hoc spices to season the foundation of running a lot.

It seems the obvious answer is that running and competing in running was much more popular 30 years ago. So there were a lot of really good, but not-elite athletes training very hard. Other sports are much more plentiful now. Soccer, hockey, lacrosse, snowboarding, etc. are all much more popular and siphoning off athletes that could be good runners but choose not to. And because running is not as popular, it seems that those with mediocre talent are less likely to train real hard because unless you are at the top there seems to be less of a point.

Kwirqy wrote:

High school runners are better now than in the 70s, the talent is still there. The difference is no 20-somethings see glory on the roads. At 20 I would run 1:13 and get 30th in a local 1/2. Now the same time would be top 5.

There are way more fun sports to do outside of high school now. Snowboard, MMA, rock climbing, vaping....

This. I love running. I truly do. But after moving to CO, I love hiking, biking and camping just as much,

One idea is to make the marathon part of the NCAA T & F championships. One way to do it would way would be to have the marathon championships in the Fall. I know it might hurt X-country, but it could be cool. An athlete could run cross for the first 2-3 years of eligibility then go for the marathon in his/her last couple of years. It could also help folks build up the big bases needed to run really fast in the 10K in the spring/summer.

A second approach would be to contest the marathon at the same time (or maybe a month earlier) than the T & F championships. Your team might lose some 5K/10K depth but the folks who are good at the marathon might not be that good at sit and kick championship races anyway.

Regardless of how it is scheduled, I think that making the marathon part of NCAA track could have a huge positive impact on U.S. capacity and depth in the race. Right now college coaches and athletes don't have the incentive to do the big miles and hard marathon paced runs needed to compete at the global level. If athletes (and their coaches) can compete for college marathon championships, then that might begin to change....

Precious Roy wrote:

Back in the day, lots of people would train like animals because it was possible to win races and make a few bucks even if you worked a full time job. Now, there are fewer races with good money and the ones that do have good money also have a dozen E. Africans. For your average post collegiate runner, there is no point in trying to train hard because there so few good races and are piles of E. Africans at the good races. So, the pool of pro level runners is now very small because it is now assumed that you have to be sponsored to make it worth bothering with training hard.

By the 80s it was possible to make a few bucks from road races but in the 70s we really were doing it for its own sake. There was no money unless you were a track guy good enough to get some under the table. When Jack Fultz won Boston in 1976 he got nothing and couldn't even scrounge his way to the big track meets that were mostly on the west coast.

Burnsy wrote:

'It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles"

.

In Sun Tzu's era and the years after, China lost every war they were in.

There are hundreds of fall marathons to run. What is it again that will be solved by adding another one?

A bigger issue is how do you choose who is a marathoner vs a 5k runner? You're not going to run a great marathon off of 5k training and you're not going to run a great 5k off of marathon training. On the other hand, you can run a great 10k off 5k training as can you run a great 1500 off of 5k training.

There's a lot of inherent risks in running a marathon.

-- You need 4-5 months of marathon specific training. This generally means that unless you're a Galen Rupp level athlete, you're probably not going to be winning track races during this period. With track, you can get your XC guys in shape pretty quick so by the end of January/early Feb you're seeing fast times.

-- Higher mileage has risks of injury

-- Not everyone who is a good 5k/10k runner will be good marathoner. I know plenty of guys in college who were 15 flat 5k guys or faster who couldn't crack 2:50 in the marathon.