Improving Marathon times
Options
Replies
-
@justrunjon thank you for your input. I have read all the posts. You haven't said what you would suggest would help improve marathon times. I had been doing tempo runs and intervals before. To be honest I didn't think that helped me much at mile 18 in the marathon but I'm not an expert, far from it.
I am a relative newbie runner. I have been running 3 years. I already run between 35 and 40 miles a week. By that I mean I run it EVERY week.
What I understand is being suggested is I up my mileage per week but also that more of the runs are done closer to marathon pace. Longer tempo runs. This makes sense to me. I have been running long enough to know I need to increase the mileage slowly.
I want to improve my times over years. I'm not expecting to run go from 4:30 to sub 4 this year. If you have other suggestions I'm geniunely intertested. Have you found intervals and tempos have a big effect?
Sorry to have hijacked the thread but being told to up your mileage by 50% is plain bad advice! for one you will put yourself at all sorts of risk of injury! any experienced runner knows this so why scottb81 has told you this is beyond me if he has experience!
Lydiard is just one coach, there are lots more who would have you TRAIN SMART and not plod out endless miles, base building is one aspect of a full and varied training program. It certainly isnt the be all and end all some would have you believe! long slow miles = a long slow miles runner!0 -
@justrunjon no need to apologise. I won't be jumping to 60 miles next week this is going to take months if not years. I understand your concern taken out of context telling someone to up their mileage by 50% is bad advice. I don't believe in my context it's bad advice.
Scottb81 and Carsonruns have answered some of my other questions and understand my frustration with marathon training and in particular the marathon I ran in October. I was not prepared for the distance. They are also probably aware I do a 14 mile roundtrip to/from work at twice a week and have done for the last few years.
My problem with the training plans are I don't think they prepare you for the marathon. I'm starting my training now for a marathon in October. Every other sport I have been involved with you train harder than you hope to perform. For some reason in marathons, you train less than you hope to perform. I assume this is to prevent injury. If this is the case to goal has to be adjusted to a slower time.
I wouldn't train for a bout of 12 * 3 minute rounds by sparing 6 * 2 minute rounds it doesn't make sense.
This is what I'm going to do. I have started increasing my mileage already no more than 10% a week and I have a step down week every 3 weeks. I'm running my long runs at a pace of 9:28 but they are only around 11 miles at the moment. I will continue carefully adding miles until I can run 9:20 for at least 18 to 22 miles. I will run this years marathon. If I succeed running close to the 9:20 pace I will look at intervals and speedwork to improve my pace, tempo etc.
Thanks to everyone for your valued contributions.
Pabs0 -
The variables I am talking about are age, sex, genetics, and overall training history so I have not contradicted myself at all. In a distance of 26 miles where the average new runner is finishing in 4 hours or more, intervals and tempo runs are next to irrelevant. That person is running for so long that running anywhere close to LT is physically impossible. They would be much better served by increasing their aerobic capacity which will in turn allow them to run faster while consuming less glycogen and generating less lactate. This is done by running lots of miles for a long time (several years).
Someone who runs 40 miles a week would run a faster marathon if he ran 60 miles a week.
Because about 99% of the energy used in a marathon is from aerobic pathways and the biggest predictor of aerobic fitness is average weekly mileage. Anyone looking to improve their marathon performance can best do that by improving aerobic capacity and that is done by running lots of miles at the appropriate intensity year after year.The single most important predictor of marathon performance is average weekly mileage. If you want to improve then run more.
In my opinion you should aim for averaging around 60 miles per week minimum for the 20 weeks leading up to the race for best results.
Also, most of the mileage, around 80%, should be run easy, around 75% max HR if you use a HRM. Trying to get faster by running faster all the time will not work. It will only make you really tired and eventually overwhelm your body's ability to adapt during high volume training.
Really?????????????????
Yes, really.
please please let me know how milage has anything to do with predicting performance?
The more miles one runs and the longer they keep at it the greater their aerobic capacity will be within their own personal genetic limit. It probably would take about 10 years of constant high mileage running to approach that limit.
So you are telling me someone who runs 60 miles a week will run a quicker marathon than those that do 40 miles per week?
There are too many other variables involved to isolate one variable and compare 2 different people.
You have just contradicted yourself! way too many variables! Either way its poor advice to tell a newbie runner to up there milage to 60+ a week to improve times! what about intervals, what about tempo runs, you yourself have picked out one variable and said go and do that like its gospel!
More importantly, this is not simply my opinion but the accumulated experience of such "Marathoning" experts as Lydiard, Phitzinger, Daniels, and others.
The mistake most people make is thinking they have to train fast in order to get faster. The result is that they run too fast all the time, and by extension too little, and never fully develop the aerobic capacity in the legs' slow twitch muscle fibers. All the tempo and interval training in the world isn't going to fix that.
Finally, when I said that people who run marathons should be aiming at 60 mi a week minimum that's exactly what I meant. If a new runner cannot do that then their focus should be on building a base to that level before worrying about "speed" training. If it takes several marathon training cycles to get there then when they do finally get to that point they will be much better prepared for the distance than if they sacrificed the volume for faster training runs.
The bottom line is that faster training runs are next to useless unless one has built their aerobic capacity high enough that they can sustain that faster pace for 26 miles and not simply run fast for 20 miles, hit the wall, and then walk the last 6 miles.
Utter crap! if you cant learn to run fast you will never run faster end of!
My experience and the experience of many novice, intermediate and elite runners and the experience of coaches all over the world agrees with Scott. You're just wrong here. Do some research. You'll see.0 -
long slow miles = a long slow miles runner!
This is just BS.0 -
long slow miles = a long slow miles runner!
This is just BS.
oh should I up my miles to 60 a week and that will make me fast!? thats BS0 -
SInce my experience has been called into question here it is for the reader to judge.
Garmin Log: http://connect.garmin.com/profile/scottb81
Running Ahead Log for 2013: http://goo.gl/KaSVI
Started running consistently in 2011. I had run before, but had done nothing for the previous 4 years.
2011 Mileage: 1910
2011 Ave Weekly Mileage: 42 (includes only the weeks I ran)
2011 PRs
10K: 47:10
Mar: 3:50
2012 Mileage: 3552
2012 Ave Weekly Mileage: 68
2012 PRs
5K: 20:10
HMar: 1:35:25
Mar: 3:32:12
2013 Mileage to date: 226
2013 Ave Weekly Mileage: 72
My times are by no means great but they are well above average for a 52 year old male. My best races came after periods of LSD - *Long Steady Distance, not Slow DIstance. Once I started adding a lot of intervals and tempos in mid 2012 my performance plateaued, and perhaps declined slightly.
My two best races, the 2012 HMar and 5K came right after I drastically increased my average weekly mileage from 51 miles per week (10 wk average) to 73 miles per week, without doing any speedwork at all.
My experience is also that it is not all that difficult to add lots of mileage as long as the pace is easy. Adding mileage while doing speedwork is an invitation to injury. The most important thing is that if it starts to hurt then back off a little. If you get tired that is to be expected. If your legs become dead and training paces begin to decline at the same effort level then back off a little.
*Long Steady DIstance is run in the aerobic heart rate zone - around 70 to 80% max heartrate.0 -
long slow miles = a long slow miles runner!
This is just BS.
oh should I up my miles to 60 a week and that will make me fast!? thats BS
Why don't you try it and see? Have you ever read anything about distance training?
My results echo those of Scott. My PR's are listed on my profile as well as a link to my training log. Have a look.
What kind of results have you seen and what type of training are you doing?0 -
SInce my experience has been called into question here it is for the reader to judge.
Garmin Log: http://connect.garmin.com/profile/scottb81
Running Ahead Log for 2013: http://goo.gl/KaSVI
Started running consistently in 2011. I had run before, but had done nothing for the previous 4 years.
2011 Mileage: 1910
2011 Ave Weekly Mileage: 42 (includes only the weeks I ran)
2011 PRs
10K: 47:10
Mar: 3:50
2012 Mileage: 3552
2012 Ave Weekly Mileage: 68
2012 PRs
5K: 20:10
HMar: 1:35:25
Mar: 3:32:12
2013 Mileage to date: 226
2013 Ave Weekly Mileage: 72
My times are by no means great but they are well above average for a 52 year old male. My best races came after periods of LSD - *Long Steady Distance, not Slow DIstance. Once I started adding a lot of intervals and tempos in mid 2012 my performance plateaued, and perhaps declined slightly.
My two best races, the 2012 HMar and 5K came right after I drastically increased my average weekly mileage from 51 miles per week (10 wk average) to 73 miles per week, without doing any speedwork at all.
My experience is also that it is not all that difficult to add lots of mileage as long as the pace is easy. Adding mileage while doing speedwork is an invitation to injury. The most important thing is that if it starts to hurt then back off a little. If you get tired that is to be expected. If your legs become dead and training paces begin to decline at the same effort level then back off a little.
*Long Steady DIstance is run in the aerobic heart rate zone - around 70 to 80% max heartrate.
And your still +20 for a 5k? :-(0 -
long slow miles = a long slow miles runner!
This is just BS.
oh should I up my miles to 60 a week and that will make me fast!? thats BS
Why don't you try it and see? Have you ever read anything about distance training?
My results echo those of Scott. My PR's are listed on my profile as well as a link to my training log. Have a look.
What kind of results have you seen and what type of training are you doing?
This is the thing, the pair of you refuse to believe there is another way to train! I never do more than 40/45m per week! the results I see above are just standard lowering of pb,s I would expect from any runner running 40+ miles a week for a few years! how do you both know any different if you havent tried another way to train? Why would you want to keep knocking out all them miles to be running a 20+ min 5k ( this isnt meant in a derogatory fashion) Why wouldnt you train smarter to lower them times? Is lydiard the only coaches philosophy you stand by? is it a case of what works for me must work for everyone so thats the advice thats given?? there are lots of proven plans to lower times why is this one the only one you support? why are even advanced marathon schedules maxing out at 55 miles per week?? There is more than one way! If you want to keep on with your dinosaur training ideology please do. Personally I train smart0 -
They aren't. Pfitzinger, Daniels, and The Hansons all go well beyond 55.why are even advanced marathon schedules maxing out at 55 miles per week??0 -
long slow miles = a long slow miles runner!
This is just BS.
oh should I up my miles to 60 a week and that will make me fast!? thats BS
Why don't you try it and see? Have you ever read anything about distance training?
My results echo those of Scott. My PR's are listed on my profile as well as a link to my training log. Have a look.
What kind of results have you seen and what type of training are you doing?
This is the thing, the pair of you refuse to believe there is another way to train! I never do more than 40/45m per week! the results I see above are just standard lowering of pb,s I would expect from any runner running 40+ miles a week for a few years! how do you both know any different if you havent tried another way to train? Why would you want to keep knocking out all them miles to be running a 20+ min 5k ( this isnt meant in a derogatory fashion) Why wouldnt you train smarter to lower them times? Is lydiard the only coaches philosophy you stand by? is it a case of what works for me must work for everyone so thats the advice thats given?? there are lots of proven plans to lower times why is this one the only one you support? why are even advanced marathon schedules maxing out at 55 miles per week?? There is more than one way! If you want to keep on with your dinosaur training ideology please do. Personally I train smart
Okay, let me get this out of the way first. It's comments like "Personally I train smart" that I find to be a barrier to civil discussion. It implies that I (we?) train not smart, or in other words, dumb. Now, I'm going to ignore that and try to move beyond it. Also, my apologies to you if I have made any comments that you've deemed to be degrading or dismissive.
Sure, there are other ways to train and they will even produce favorable results. Plans like FIRST can produce results, but the problem with those types of plans is that they are not sustainable over time because they don't address the basic building block of distance running, aerobic fitness, the way that Lydiard based programs do. Yes, you can gain aerobic fitness from biking and other cross training activities, but it doesn't do as good a job as running. Additionally, the body needs those miles to develop the stability systems that are essential in running. In the January/February issue of Running Times there is a section called "Owner's Manual". In this edition, they discuss "Strategies for maximizing your running life, not just the next race". One section that is printed in large, bold, contrasting color font states this: "The Internet is full of programs for faster progression. The world is also full of injured and burned-out runners." The theme of the article is that it takes a lot of time and a lot of base to sustain improvements over your life-time.
To summarize, I believe that you can get faster on 40 miles per week if most of it is easy running. Some runners may be happy with the gains that they get running 40 miles per week. If the bulk of that 40 miles is hard effort, you run the risk of becoming one of those runners referred to in the bold section above. But, if you want to maximize your potential. If you want to run your very best, you must increase your aerobic base by running high(er) mileage. I can't put a number on that. Some people will never be capable of running more than 40 miles per week. Some can run 180 miles per week, though I think that's excessive as do many professional coaches, believing that you hit the point of diminishing returns around 120 miles per week. Why do I believe this to be the only truth? There is both science to confirm it and anecdotal evidence to support it. I have yet to read of an elite distance runner whose coach advocates anything other than a training plan that is firmly grounded in Lydiard's principles.0 -
I dont want or need to argue with you, i have seen you have given some great advice on other threads! back to what the thread was about tho the lady wants to improve her marathon time, she isnt Elite I repeat isnt ELITE so can we please stop with what the elites are doing! we can learn from them yes!! she is at the moment a very average runner! the advice given was to up her milage nothing else, no intervals no tempo runs no track time no core work, nothing about how some strength training can make her a faster stronger runner! just up her mileage! she can build a perfectly good base on 40+ miles a week, where does the magic 60 come from? and how is it applicable to this lady?
I see even your 5k time isnt what I was expecting if your running 60+m a week!! we have club runners doing 16 minutes on less than 30m a week! when it comes a round who is going to be the faster 10k/10m/half or full runner?
I think we may have to just disagree, yes base mileage is great for a new runner I am not doubting that but I will still maintain telling somone just to up there mileage by 50% is poor advice0 -
OP, thanks so much for starting this topic. I am a real newbie (less than 1 year running,) but I tend to be ambitious in my goals for myself. Additionally, I have either been an athlete or trained athletes for the past 30+ years. One thing has struck me as strange is that marathon training plans top out at 20 miles for the long run and relatively low miles overall. Yet for some reason people supposedly "hit the wall" at mile 20. So how much of it is physical (having only trained 3/4 of the total distance) and how much is mental (I've only done 20 miles, people hit the wall at 20 miles- oh no! I'm going to hit the wall!)
My marathon is in March and I hit the 20 mile long run December 17. Since then I have been upping my midweek mileage and have scaled back to every-other week long runs, and will be increasing my long-run mileage to 26 miles before I taper. Last weekend I ran 6.4 miles to the start of a half marathon and did the half in record time (for me) at 1:49:19. I know that is not fast by elite standards, but it's ok for a 40 year old newbie who started more than a 10k before the race. How much of that is the fact that I feel comfortable with the distance? I certainly wasn't dead the next day, so I have to think that I probably could have pushed harder (I couldn't be dead- I promised that I would play a round of golf with my husband before heading back to the cold in DC
)
I have been reading Carson and Scott's posts eagerly, because what they are saying MAKES SENSE from the basic standpoint of physical training. It's nice to see someone advocating doing more to improve results. If you're running a high volume of miles, of course you will get better. Specificity of training- i.e. training in your competitive conditions- whether it is the type of terrain, the altitude, the weather, or the distance, is advocated in many other sports. Why should running be different? Several weeks prior to competition, I have my skaters execute "double run-throughs" of their program; in other words, the program with all jumps and spins, executed twice back-to-back. We then do a one week taper prior to the start of the events- no double run-throughs, but practicing performing in different start orders. Now I know that skating is more of a sprint with bouts of explosive power thrown in than an endurance event, but my athletes know that if they have enough endurance to execute twice in a row, then no matter when or where they skate- even if they are first after the warm-up with no break and at high altitude- they will be able to successfully perform the program.
Granted, my experience is with a drastically different sport. But there are definitely constants in the field of athletic training, and I believe that the more you can do while remaining injury free, the better off you will be! And if I'm correct that there is a mental component to running, then the more physically prepared you are, then the easier the race will be from both a physical AND mental standpoint.0 -
I'd love to increase my speed, but if I even attempted 80 miles a week, I know I'd get injured...I can just about manage 125 miles a month and the Hal higdon plan I'm following doesn't exceed 25 miles a week including the long run.
I'll look at doing interval training instead, last time I got injured I was out for 10 weeks... I can't afford that risk with my first marathon in may coming uo0 -
I have to agree with a lot of what Carson and Scott have said.
I can't really add much except for anecdotal advice. I am a very average runner, and the best advice I've ever followed was simply to run more.
No one is dismissing track work, tempo work, core strengthening, etc., but even the OP was stating that that didn't help her much when she died during the last few miles of the marathon. I can't even agree more - the marathon is an endurance event, not a sprint.
I saw my biggest gains by slowing down and running more. Went from running 35 miles per week to about 50. In the span of a few months, I took 20 minutes off my marathon time (middle of the pack runner - 4:38 to a 4:18 at that time). I've improved my times even more since then, following the same type of training. I did no speedwork whatsoever, but did throw in a few fast finish miles at the end of my long run. Most of my long runs were done at 30 to even 1:00 slower than race pace. I never died or hit the wall at that marathon. Was one of my best races ever.
To whoever said that long slow miles = a long slow runner - I call bollox on that as well! My shorter race times improved dramatically when I started running more (slower) miles. I've managed to run injury free by keeping most of my running easy. Even if you look at how elites train, they don't go out running 5 minute miles for all of their training runs. They're running them slow (like 7 minute mile slow!) LOL.
To the OP, I can understand increasing the pace of your long runs... I don't think you necessarily have to run 1-2 minutes slower than race pace. A few race pace miles and longer tempo runs will definitely help as well.
Best of luck to you.0 -
We can't ignore what the elites are doing because they are training the way that has been proven to work over time. We can ALL train like the elites in structure. An elite marathoner may run 10 hours a week during peak marathon training. At an average pace of 6 minutes per mile, that's 100 miles per week. I recreational runner can train 10 hours a week too. At an average of 10 minutes per mile, that's 60 miles per week. If you want to train to perform in a marathon, you have to train like a marathon runner. Who better to emulate in structure than an elite....back to what the thread was about tho the lady wants to improve her marathon time, she isnt Elite I repeat isnt ELITE so can we please stop with what the elites are doing! we can learn from them yes!! she is at the moment a very average runner! the advice given was to up her milage nothing else, no intervals no tempo runs no track time no core work, nothing about how some strength training can make her a faster stronger runner! just up her mileage! she can build a perfectly good base on 40+ miles a week, where does the magic 60 come from? and how is it applicable to this lady?
The reason that the advice was given to up the mileage is because the marathon is an aerobic event. You have to build aerobic base. You do that by running more miles. It doesn't all have to be slow miles, but running 60 second 400s isn't going to help with aerobic base. Doing core work isn't going to help build aerobic base, but it is important to help with form and to keep one injury free. Strength training is not going to help her run a faster marathon, though the right kind may help to keep her injury free. Tempo runs should be a part of any base training or marathon training. My original post to the OP pointed her to my training log which shows that during my marathon training I did easy running LT and AT runs (tempo) and strides and that was about it. If you read my blog about that race, you'll see that I ran a huge PR on that training even though I ran a very conservative race for the first 18 miles. I was probably capable of a 3:08 on that day.
The reason for this was not solely because of the mileage that I ran during the 16 week training phase, but because of the other 50+ miles per week that I averaged over the previous two years. All of that was aerobic base.
What's your 5K time and what does your training look like? You haven't given any evidence to support that you even know what you are talking about. I'm an open book.I see even your 5k time isnt what I was expecting if your running 60+m a week!! we have club runners doing 16 minutes on less than 30m a week! when it comes a round who is going to be the faster 10k/10m/half or full runner?
My 5K PR was run almost a year ago. It was in the middle of training for a HM. I did no specific 5K training. It was on a very hilly and challenging course. On a flat course, I probably run closer to 19:10. With specific training, probably 18:55. I haven't run a 5K since then. You might want to stay tuned though. After my 10 miler on March 10th, I'm going to focus on 5K and the mile through mid summer.
As for these alleged club runners doing sub 16's on <30 miles per week. Yeah, that's possible, but only if they are experienced runners with years of base mileage. But what does that have to do with the OP who is looking for marathon training advice?
How is that poor advice? Did I say "go run 60 miles starting next week"? Look at a marathon training plan. One that starts at around 40 miles per week will top out at around 60 miles per week. That's over a 16 week period. Using the 10% rule (which I don't subscribe to anyway, but it works for this illustration), that's a very conservative build up. 10% a week would have you at 60 in about 5 weeks, which is too fast and a reason that I don't use that axiom. You asked where the magic number of 60 comes from too. Well, as I stated above. 60 miles at 10 minutes per mile is 10 hours. That's a common pace for someone who is training for a second or third marathon. Having a bit of knowledge about the OP's running history helps.I think we may have to just disagree, yes base mileage is great for a new runner I am not doubting that but I will still maintain telling somone just to up there mileage by 50% is poor advice0 -
My marathon is in March and I hit the 20 mile long run December 17. Since then I have been upping my midweek mileage and have scaled back to every-other week long runs, and will be increasing my long-run mileage to 26 miles before I taper.
I wouldn't do this. Running 26 miles during training will be counter-productive. It will take you body a lot longer to recover from 26 than it will to recover from 20. You'll end up further behind, or God forbid, injured. A better idea is to increase your mid-week, mid-long run to the 12 mile range and get some doubles in a couple times a week over the last 6 weeks before tapering.
I've run three marathons now and I think I did one 22 mile run, one 21 and the rest were no more than 20. If you want to see how it all played out, there is link to my training log on my profile.0 -
I agree.......I tried to do a 16 mile run a week after running 24 miles.....I complained on this site and Carson made me realise how long it takes your body to recover.
I am really pleased I took His advice. I have since run 20 miles - no problem and My marathon is in a month.
Good luck with yours!
quote]My marathon is in March and I hit the 20 mile long run December 17. Since then I have been upping my midweek mileage and have scaled back to every-other week long runs, and will be increasing my long-run mileage to 26 miles before I taper.
I wouldn't do this. Running 26 miles during training will be counter-productive. It will take you body a lot longer to recover from 26 than it will to recover from 20. You'll end up further behind, or God forbid, injured. A better idea is to increase your mid-week, mid-long run to the 12 mile range and get some doubles in a couple times a week over the last 6 weeks before tapering.
I've run three marathons now and I think I did one 22 mile run, one 21 and the rest were no more than 20. If you want to see how it all played out, there is link to my training log on my profile.
[/quote]0 -
Thanks. I'll skip the 26miler, then. I still want to make it to 24, just for my own peace of mind. This week my mid runs were 12 Wed, day off Thurs, 8 Fri, and 8 today. I feel good after the 12 miles and I feel like I'm cheating when I run 8. I have tomorrow off and then 22 on Monday. Long runs of 16 the following Monday followed by 24 on Feb 11. I'm happy to drop back down to 20 after that- and the marathon is March 16, so that *should* give me plenty of time to recover. However I'm open to your ideas.
Here's what I've got remaining on my schedule (after nixing the 26 mile run Feb 25.) I'm starting the week at Monday (my long run day.) Monday 18 Feb I will have to work all day, so I'm not planning a long run that day and instead doing back to back 12mi runs Tue-Wed.
Week of: Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun TW
1/28 22 R R 10 8 8 R 48
2/4 16 R 12 R 8 10 R 46
2/11 24 R R 10 8 10 R 52
2/18 R 12 12 R 10 10 R 44
2/25 20 R 12 R 8 6 R 46
3/4 10 R 4 R 6 3 R 23
3/11 6 R 3 R R Mar.
I really appreciate your thoughts and advice!0 -
Ugh, that formatting was terrible, sorry!
Edit: days are Mon-Sun, and total weekly mileage is at the end.0
