Marathoning training - only running 3 days a week

If you read on the FIRST website you'll that you can indeed run on the other rest days if you choose. I think you'll find the program "FIRST to the Finish" training program a little more intense than the one outlined in RW.

read the stuff from FIRST, but please getting your training from Runner's World if you are a real runner? no one is going to run an A standard on three days a week

and are you the ultimate arbiter on just who is and isn't a "real runner?"

I will be attending a marathon clinic at one of the Hansons stores tonight if anyone would like me to ask them anything (just one more opinion) that may shed another opinion on all of this.

They're real big on a 16-week program with no runs exceeding 16 miles for most marathoners. Their schedule is based on intensity instead of distance. Any schedule that calls for 2-3 20 mile runs will be dismissed by them hands down. On the other hand, I ran my 1st marathon 8 years ago using their program and finshed 10 minutes faster than my goal time and the recovery week afterword left me feeling good and ready to go again.

Bigfoot wrote:

Any schedule that calls for 2-3 20 mile runs will be dismissed by them hands down.

In our first clinic this issue was not dismissed at all. Kevin went into a lengthy discussion behind the 20 miler, the history of the 20 miler and its advantages and disadvantages. I actually had a clearer understanding for why the 20 miler isn't necessary for those of us that are running les than 70 miles a week. He also went into a little bit of physiology to explain the theory. I was sold. Although maybe I will have a different opinion after the marathon.

Is the point (a) that the three key workouts bring success or (b) that more rest is the critical component or (c)both? If (a), it's hardly a discovery that a runner training for a marathon should run 10K paced intervals, tempo runs, long runs, and marathon pace runs. If (b), based on my experience and everything that I've seen and read, I find it hard to believe that 30mpw + cross-training is better than 70mpw, assuming that you are hitting the workouts the same. Maybe that last assumption is critical, isn't it necessary to teach your body to handle the load? When I increased my average weekly mileage for the 14 pre-marathon weeks from 60 to 80, I took 20 minutes off my marathon time (both times sub-3), so perhaps I'm attributing more to the volume increase than I should. Please help me understand.

Maybe I just have no leg speed and am all slowtwitch, but the paces outlined for the speedwork in the FIRST program seem quite fast. According to the website, 400m reps are to be run at 55-60 seconds faster than 10k pace. 1600m reps are to be run at 35-40 seconds faster than 10k pace.

http://www.furman.edu/first/1.htm

A 34 min 10k runner (roughly 5:30 mile; 82.5 quarter pace) would run 12 x 400m at 72.5 with only one minute rest in the first week of the program. Under Daniels' Vdot table, 72 is roughly the "R" pace for this runner. R pace should be close to one mile race pace and requires lots of recovery between reps (correct?). In the very first week, this program is asking for 12 quarters at close to mile race pace with only one minute rest (in marathon training). In week six, this runner would have to run 3 x 1600m in 4:50-4:55 with one minute rest. Now this runner is being asked to piece together three one mile repeats at close to mile race pace (equivalent performance for 34 minute 10k is about 4:47 mile). I don't know about others, but if I race a mile I usually don't feel capable of going back out at the same pace one minute later (forget about doing it twice more).

I could be reading the table wrongly, but if I am reading it correctly these "key" workouts seem a bit over the top for a non-elite marathoner.

You are reading it right and I agree totally. I'm always better at the shorter stuff and those interval paces are too fast for me. I'm a sub 35 minute 10k guy and a 4:45 miler. I would have a very hard time with those intervals.

Not that I'd be able to do anything close to your workouts, but the "logic" they use is that you should have the strength and stamina for the tougher workouts since you are only running 3 days per week. Don't know if that's necessarily true, but that's what the gurus stated in the article.

Bigfoot I think that is exactly the concept. Based on the paces for all key workouts, it seems to me that one would have to treat each workout as if it is a competitive effort. I find it is a very interesting program. It probably isn’t a new concept and not that innovative. I think it is best suited for the individual that is athletic, wants to run a good marathon, but at the same time doesn’t want to give up league basketball or some other athletic hobby.

200 Fly

I think that's because the program is for 4hr guys ... you'd have to scale it down for faster guys. & faster guys aren't going ot be running 3 days a week anyways.

if k. bekele only ran 3 days a week, he would still beat most and probably all americans from 5k to the marathon. with the rest days in between he could work very hard. lets say his week consisted of a 90 minute to 2 hours at a good pace for him probably sub 5 minute mil pace, then after a rest day 1000 meter at 10k pace, which for him is 235-240 with a 200-400 rest until he cant continue, rested with the breaks my guess is he would do at least 20 minimum, then on the next running day he runs quarters with a 100 rest at 5k pace which for him is 60-61, again with the rest day, i guess he could do at least 50 of them, yes someone who is that good could succeed on a 3 day a week program even at the highest level.

I think the key question is whether recovery runs are allowing recovery. The implicit assumption of the 3-days-a-week program appears to be that they do not, or at least not for the average recreational runner.

There is probably something to this, and there have been various approaches to deal with the issue: Running with a heart rate monitor on recovery days to make sure you go slow enough, forcing yourself not to run faster than a certain pace, etc.

If you cannot discipline yourself sufficiently to make sure the recovery days promote recovery, it may make sense to do cross training instead.

On the whole, however, there is more evidence in favour of running on recovery days than against it. The fact that _some_ people have done well with little or no running on off days neither means that everybody will do well, nor that these same people could not have done better with more running.

Until someone does a real test, taking (say) 150 runners of varying talent levels, dividing them into three groups of 50, and making one do only cross training on off days, one forced to run easy on off days (e.g. with a HRM), and one running at a pace of their choosing on off days, I would go with the accumulated evidence so far, i.e. run, but make sure to keep it easy on off days.

Winston Churchill smoked, drank and was overweight and still lived into his 90s. This does not mean that smoking, drinking, and gaining weight will make you live into your 90s. It _does_ mean that if you're lucky and have the right genetics, it is possible (though probably not likely) to do so. If this example is enough for you to start smoking and drinking heavily, then by all means run just 3 days a week when trying to optimize your marathon training.

200fly wrote:

A 34 min 10k runner (roughly 5:30 mile; 82.5 quarter pace) would run 12 x 400m at 72.5 with only one minute rest in the first week of the program.

12x400 @72w/ 1 min rest

Wow- that is one stiff workout esp. for the 1st week.

Re: Hansons, I read some of the info. in RT about their marathon program that doesn't go over 16m. It all made sense. Provided you do the 16m @ the desired pace and included another medium long run during the week. If I remember their criticism was that the 20 miler was a disproportionate amount of the typical person's weekly mileage. They had nothing against the 20 miler, as long as you were running up towards 80+ miles per week.

What is the recommended pace of the long run,(Hansons) 16 miles? Thanks

The one thing that stood out to me in this article is that the group that was tested lost an average of like 8.5% body fat.

That's great, but I don't have 8.5% body fat to lose. How much of their improvement can be attributed to this loss of weight?

I'd like to see a study done with a group of fit/lean athletes and see if the results would differ.

Yeah this was a good way for runners world to sell more magazines since they write the same articles over and over again. 3 days a week of training is not going to make you run every well no matter what kind of spin you put on it.

Why are you asking the Hansons. What do they know. Nothing as it is not like the Hansons team is burning it up in marathoning for all the money they put into their stupid program.