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

This is the thread I've been hoping to see, as many of these American groups pride themselves on being elite, when all sorts of unknown guys were running 120 miles a week and cracking 2:20 every time they toed the line. I would really like to know what many of those 70's and 80's runners were doing, or maybe they didn't have a rhyme or reason as to what they were doing. I've seen a few samples of running logs from Rodgers and Shorter, and those guys killed themselves week in a week out. But maybe what we consider to be killer, was just simple training. I would agree that guys now are weak, and need social media to reinforce their "hard workouts". Another example: Tony Sandoval! Med student, married with kids, 100+ miles/week and 1980 trials winner! Those guys didn't give a damn back then!

I was a good, not great runner of that era. My best was 2:19:15 (Boston 1974), and ran just over 2:20 twice (1973, 1975). From 1970-1976 I probably averaged 110 miles a week. During that time I was either a full time student, or full time employed. I believe we had well thought out and structured training. Perhaps what was different, was the belief that a certain amount of volume was a requirement for success. I am not saying that philosophy was optimal, but was certainly an important component for success.

Igy

patti wrote:

Hm well mymymy...my favorite time of running. ;) Let's pull up a chair shall we get and comfortable. I'll provide the coffee and let's chat...and reminisce...

If I still had my earth shoes, I'd still be running in them.

Right now I wear non running cloths to run in...madras shorts and an a t shirt.

Run in non descript shoes.

Still running with the hopes of attaining 150 I a week (dreaming of just one week)...I know crazy..but it's fun for me. Nice courses good weather, easy rolling along pace. Have three dogs to rotate.

I loved all the races that were held in just about every community. In the Spring Summer and Fall I could run up to 3 or 4 on a week-end and only spent a couple of bucks. Can't do that now.

Methinks you and I are remembering through rose colored glasses, but I'm with you. In fact, at the last free race I ran, you showed up. It was free, low-key, and lots of fun. The competition was good and the food afterward was simple and home-baked. I wish all races were like this.

You will see the best marathon ever on Sunday morning!!!! Three guys under 2:03 in the same race. Not to mention a 2:00:26 guy (even it was a time trail style event) He still ran 26.2 miles in 2 hours flat....

could be.

Then I didn't have body work, ie massage therapy, spiral technique, now I do.

Then didn't stretch, now I do.

Then I didn't know a heck if a lit about nutrition, now I do.

Then didn't cross train.

Still don't.

Running is hard. After time off for one thing or another and to start again..painful.

Nothing, but nothing makes my glasses rosy.

it's wonderful to remember when.

Helps bring the present into focus.

Niw as then, I remember the feel of things. Times are just

numbers without the feel.if it.

I run now as then for it.

I live to love feeling good. Fast tough run no matter the time is still a fast tough run. A float run is awesome. A magic carpet ride happens once in a blue moon. I'm waiting for the blue moon.

No internet then, just good old "Lets go for a run around JP."

hmm, johnny Kellys race....nats place. good time...youre right old school.

this year it poured out. turned around and went home to t he

couch..lol

In my home town which was small we had three All-State CC runners for HS running with the Boston marathoner over the summers. They'd do 60-90 minutes almost every weekend and a couple times during the week. The good HS runners were putting in between 70-100 mpw. From memory of the ones log book I remember a couple weeks at 110 miles. The training program they were doing is very similar to what many good runners do today.

The difference is it was based on feel. Most of the scientific approaches now are just with data proving what these guys did off of feel was fairly spot on.

This is from a very good HSers log book from '78 granted it was to prepare for 3 mile to 10k races. I'd guess with this training they'd of been able to run a fast marathon too. Below was a 90.5 mile week in the summer. Mondays workouts were listed as Viren Sprints or 2-3 poles med-hard 1 pole easy. About every other week there was also listed 5-10 wind sprints.

M: easy 60+30 Modified Viren Sprints 200 or 300 med-hard with 100 jog

T: easy 60+60

W: easy 30+pick-up 30

Thur easy 60+60

F 60 med-hard

Sat easy 60 or race

Sunday easy 90 with pickups mixed in if no race on Saturday.

One thing I remember back then is they'd rather not let anyone outside of their team know what they were doing. I remember the one was asked how many miles a week they were running and he said about 40. I'm guessing because there were some good runners in the towns by us and they didn't need to know how the training was going. Today people like to share what they are doing more freely and they like the recognition on social media.

In my era it seemed to be the other way around. If someone asked what you were doing, you gave them your best workouts ever. As if you ran those week after week.

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

In my era it seemed to be the other way around. If someone asked what you were doing, you gave them your best workouts ever. As if you ran those week after week.

Igy

LMAO Yeah, I ran later than these guys I was stating and the competition in my area went down drastically between the late 70s-80s to when I ran. Peter Coe's quality over quantity took over. (I don't think the Coe's listed all the miles that were actually ran.) Anyway I was still doing what the older guys did even though during the season most morning runs were solo. I do believe the extra 20-25 miles a week helped me. Like you I would tell my competition what I was doing for workouts. I might of even told them a few fibs on times just to see their reaction.

The difference is it was based on feel. Most of the scientific approaches now are just with data proving what these guys did off of feel was fairly spot on.

I think this is big- I see runners now basing their training paces off of V-Dots and all that garbage. As a result, they seek out flat courses to do tempo runs. They know that hills will mess up the "required" pace.

They're missing out on the benefit if hills in hard runs.

When I was young, in the 70's, I had friends running sub 2:30 routinely.

Now, people think I'm some kind of God because I ran a 2:49 on 50 mpw.

I was embarrassed when I ran that!

If I ran bad when I was young you didn't sugar coat things. The expression I often used was "I ate a big one." I ran one particular bad race in college and my coach called me a "pu$$y." I took that particularly hard, challenged my manhood. I didn't go complaining about the coach hurting my feelings. Ran one of my best races at the time a couple of months later.

runn wrote:

The difference is it was based on feel. Most of the scientific approaches now are just with data proving what these guys did off of feel was fairly spot on.

I think this is big- I see runners now basing their training paces off of V-Dots and all that garbage. As a result, they seek out flat courses to do tempo runs. They know that hills will mess up the "required" pace.

They're missing out on the benefit if hills in hard runs.

When I was young, in the 70's, I had friends running sub 2:30 routinely.

Now, people think I'm some kind of God because I ran a 2:49 on 50 mpw.

I was embarrassed when I ran that!

I think what happens when you focus your training on the sorts of things you describe here is that the training itself becomes the goal more than your races do. You'll see threads here from guys who flamed out in an interval session, i.e, couldn't run the reps in the "required" splits and they're really bothered by it. You see all the threads here from people listing some sessions they've run and wanting to know what they will be able to run for various distances based on those sessions when the only real way to answer that is to race the various distances. The workouts become the end rather than the means to the end. I think this is a big reason why Lydiard sort of preferred that people be sort of vague about their interval work. But heck, if you can be some kind of god, go for it.

Until a couple years ago I made a point of doing at least one week a year where I ran at least 101 miles just so I could say that I still occasionally went over 100 miles a week. Not sure why I got away from that but now you've got me interested in shooting for a 150 mile week. I think at this stage it would be a week where I needed all of my awake time to do it.

Right now at my office, there is a conversation going on where secretaries are loudly encouraging another secretary to go ahead and get her Ironman tattoo because: "You went for it. You earned that!"

She dropped out of her Ironman training two months before the event and has never finished so much as a half-marathon.

Everyone gets a medal/tattoo.

HRE, remember its gotta feel good. No sense getting sick out of it.

I just happened to stumble on a few things and took a second looksey. Before I knew it, I'm running. And away I go..

Don't want to mention exactly how many miles or times right now...but when I thought of doing the 150

I had finished something I thought I'd never do again. So, I set a goal. Soon enough, itll get done. And I'll chuckle all the way through. Like now. Amazing to me.

I am thrilled to bits to have started running when I did. All the people I met and ran with and talk shop.

Ya know Billy and I correspond back and forth and we talk shop..lol..only without the loop around Jamaica Pond.

I'm glad I learned the feel of things.

Like not wanting to do a track workout because of being tired and drag myself through the warm up and do a big sigh to coach at the start of the interval. Then to have it all disappear when he says "hit it". And continue on for a splendid workout and to think whst I would gave missed out on.

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.

Because those guys were slow. I don't think a single one broke 2:10 on a nonAided course. Sure nuitrition, strength work, shoes and the like will make you faster. But we are talking a min not the 4+.

The 70s/80s were unique in that marathon RACING (not this completing crap) was trendy (think crossfit/obstacle course racing today) and had a good chunk of people willing to put in the work.

Right now we have a dozen or so 13:45/28:45 runners every year. Not many of them stick it out to be the 2:12 runners that would provide marathoning depth. Jared Ward for example was a good NCAA runner but he was far from great. How many of his contemparies kept training for another 6+ years? Now some of them keep working and just never get better, but most seem to get real jobs after a year or so. And then they decide that they can't have a real job, train, and have the life they want and running tends to fall by the wayside.

Relay wrote:

Right now at my office, there is a conversation going on where secretaries are loudly encouraging another secretary to go ahead and get her Ironman tattoo because: "You went for it. You earned that!"

She dropped out of her Ironman training two months before the event and has never finished so much as a half-marathon.

Everyone gets a medal/tattoo.

Posers. Fakers. Many are just way divorced from reality in so many ways.

look at Bill Rodgers training logs

he would run in the morning, race in the afternoon, then do 10 miles at night ,long run the next day.