This is more or less what this 47 years old guy does https://www.strava.com/athletes/1298651 Vey consistent 80 to 100 miles weeks and some workouts or races for sharpening - no drama. He runs 2:26 for the marathon.
This is more or less what this 47 years old guy does https://www.strava.com/athletes/1298651 Vey consistent 80 to 100 miles weeks and some workouts or races for sharpening - no drama. He runs 2:26 for the marathon.
I don’t understand why people would put in all the extra time to go slow when it has been studied well(as already been pointed out on this thread) that isn’t the best training. They spend more time and get less results. There is zero need to run 80+mpw for a non masters male runner to reach 2:55. Sometimes I wonder if these ideas come from people being insecure, scared, or prideful about their workouts so they use injury and misconceptions to justify the training. I’m sure some people have good reason (e.g. just like to run), but I certainly am tired of the discussion wrt competition when literally no one of note in the marathon and down does that and studies show us otherwise.
Masters and female - I claim no knowledge of and for all I know it could be the right training. Strong doubt, but that is opinion.
Shane33 wrote:
I don’t understand why people would put in all the extra time to go slow when it has been studied well
Some people enjoy going long and slow. Running isn't only about preformance for some people. Some use it to unwind.
Sad. wrote:
Shane33 wrote:
I don’t understand why people would put in all the extra time to go slow when it has been studied well
Some people enjoy going long and slow. Running isn't only about preformance for some people. Some use it to unwind.
I bet some just run long and slow to avoid family responsibilities.
Sad. wrote:
Shane33 wrote:
I don’t understand why people would put in all the extra time to go slow when it has been studied well
Some people enjoy going long and slow. Running isn't only about preformance for some people. Some use it to unwind.
Yes. I said nearly exactly that in my post and clarified I was talking about competition conversations which it seems like this thread is about.
Shane33 wrote:
I’m sure some people have good reason (e.g. just like to run)....
LSD, not that kind of LSD wrote:
Big Red wrote:
Amby Burfoot won the Boston Marathon in 1968. He was huge into volume and claims most miles were at 8:00 pace. OK, he does admit to doing some speed work. But still!
Most of his workouts were races(when he ran the 2:14 at Fukuoka), later on he added some 400s once a week after he didn't race as much post college. HRE has described it in better detail on here else where. Also look up Long Slow Distance: The Humane Way to Train. Or something along those lines. There was Bob Deines (not sure on the spelling of the last name). Who got 4th at the Olympic marathon trials, ran 2:2x. Most of his mileage was slow, in singles. But would usually race once a week.
Thanks for this mention. I am of course familiar with the LSD ideas, and Henderson, but I have never read his book.
Turns out it's all available online. Definitely worth a read if anyone is curious about how these methods have worked for a variety of different athletes.
http://www.joehenderson.com/longslowdistance/Running at a slower pace builds the heart muscle up pretty much the same as at a faster pace. It does not work all the systems
2:55 is not that fast they obviously could have run faster if trained properly. Natural ability is also a large factor plus they ran plenty of miles.
sciencebaby wrote:
Long slow running works, just not as well. I think just about anyone can run at a 7 min/mile pace, the trick is having the endurance to maintain that pace. Running 90mpw at basically any pace will give you that.
https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/fulltext/2007/04000/Aerobic_High_Intensity_Intervals_Improve_V_O2max.12.aspxModerately trained (55-60mL-kg) runners had VO2max tested before and after 8 weeks of these workouts (3x per week)
1) long slow distance (70% maximal heart rate; HRmax)
+1 VO2max
2)lactate threshold (85% HRmax)
+0.8 VO2max
3) 15/15 interval running (15 s of running at 90-95% HRmax followed by 15 s of active resting at 70% HRmax)
+3.9 VO2max
4) 4 × 4 min of interval running (4 min of running at 90-95% HRmax followed by 3 min of active resting at 70%HRmax)
+4.9 VO2max
Other measures increased proportionally as well (lactate threshold, running economy, etc).
Did you actually read this study or just look at the result? It doesn't strike me as particularly relevant to how most people train for long distance races.
According to the study, subjects performed the workouts 3x/week, it doesn't suggest they were doing additional workouts on the non-running days.
One of the key points is that the "Long-slow Distance" group ran for ..... 45 minutes..... 3x/week, not 90 minutes, not 120 minutes... 45 minutes.
If you are running 80-90mpw at 8:30 pace, you're running on average, at least 90 minutes every day. We don't have results for that comparative effect on Vo2 Max, and we don't really need them, if we're talking about marathon training.
According to the study "In the present study, all training groups significantly improved running economy (CR) at 7 km·h−1, 5.3% inclination, with no differences observed between the groups"
If running 45min 3x a week improves running economy as well as 4x4min interval sessions and LT sessions, it makes sense to primarily run easy, because you can do it every single day with a low risk of injury. Theoretically you'd gain the most fitness by running hard intervals every day, but physiologically no one is capable of handling that amount of physical stress.
Additionally, supplement daily easy running with 2-3 workouts per week, and voila, you have the whole package... oh yeah, that's already what most people do. No surprises here.
Amilur wrote:
This is more or less what this 47 years old guy does
https://www.strava.com/athletes/1298651Vey consistent 80 to 100 miles weeks and some workouts or races for sharpening - no drama. He runs 2:26 for the marathon.
How does someone run 100 miles a week, and run a 2:26 marathon, and finish with untaped, bloody nipples like in that picture? I wouldn't want that guy to pack my parachute.
zzzz wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
2:55 is decent but ultimately mediocre for someone running 80+ mpw. You still get decent adaptations running easy miles but he could be faster if he added more volume at race pace and faster.
That's true, but this thread isn't about training for someone's best marathon, it's about how fast you can go with just lots of easy runs and mileage, but no specific marathon training. The OP's friend could obviously go much faster if he had actually trained specifically for a marathon. I probably could have realistically targeted sub-2:30 at 43 if I did specific training.
Long miles at 830 is specific training for the marathon. It's specific training for the 5k. Running is specific training.
Marathon is 100% forking aerobic.
Inevitably more training will lead to faster times. 18:40-2:55 sounds about right given the 80 miles a week. Don't find this to be an outlier by any means. Now if he he had a 5k PR of 20:30 that would be neat.
Also, why is anyone impressed by a 2:55 no matter what the training?
Ackley wrote:
You're welcome wrote:
Only possible on LRC.
5/10 for the fair amount of responses.
Actually, it sounds a lot like Maffetone training as described by a lot of guys interviewed on Floris Gierman's youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyhJtQYs3Eta6NlaNNvstbQ
It is similar, although Maffetone is training at an easy (low) heart rate. In the early week's of Maffetone, pace is typically much slower, 10:00 per mile or slower but eventually it becomes faster, typically 6:00 to 7:30 miles at the same low heart rate.