Marathon advice needed! (Read 1304 times)

Helloooo! I am currently in week 10 of my 23 week marathon training plan. My marathon is the London Marathon on April 13th. My main goal is to survive, but I would like to do it in about 4 and a half/sub 5 hours. I am not speedy! My brother and my dad have run 6 marathons between them and they are concerned about the number of long runs I have e.g 2 over 20 miles. When they trained they only did 20 miles once, whereas the long runs for the last 8 weeks of my plan go 19, 7, 21, 14, 8, 22-23, 12, 8, 26.2 The actual plan is on p6 of this link http://www.ultra-fitmagazine.com/PDFs/beginners/Marathon%20Training%20Plan.pdf They think I would be doing too many long runs and would be tired for the big day. They are devout followers of Hal Higdon and my brother lent me a book by him which also said not to go over 20 miles if you are a beginner at the marathon distance. If you have a look at my log you will see I have steadily built mileage all year but am by no means a high mileage runner. What do you think? I would really appreciate any advice as I know there are some really experienced marathon peeps out here!

There's nothing wrong multiple 20+ milers, but I'm not sure how that might interact with your relatively low weekly mileage. You're looking at doing some long runs in another month and a half that are as long as your current weekly totals. I'm not by any means an expert on this kind of stuff, but I'm sure there are others around that would probably advise you to focus on increasing your overall weekly mileage first. If you're already committed to running a marathon 13 weeks from now, I'd advise just doing the one 20 miler.

It looks pretty similar to the plan I followed, Galloway’s “to finish” run/walk program My final long run was supposed to be 26 miles, so I decided to run it on the actual course. I took a wrong turn, and wound up covering 27.8 miles. I really think it helped during the race, knowing that I had covered the distance before. For my current Galloway run/walk plan, my final long run/walk is scheduled for 29-30 miles. For the lower total mileage plans, the gradually increasing long runs are the most important element. The muscle memory is critical, I would try to follow the schedule as written if possible. If your long is 23 miles, 26.2 is a little over a 10% bump. If your long is 20 miles, 26.2 is a little over a 30% bump. With a low mileage plan (I had a little over 600 miles run), I think your body is much better suited to handling the 10% increase. Of course, your mileage may vary (pun intended). Whatever you decide, best of luck to you freckles!

With your last long run scheduled three weeks before the marathon and nothing longer than 12 miles after that, there should be no concern about you "would be tired for the big day". A three week taper is plenty. Many runners even prefer a taper of 2-weeks or less, but 3-weeks is better for a first time marathoner. There is nothing wrong with multiple long runs. In fact, in general, the more, the better. There is no great advantage for most runners to running as long as 23 miles, especially for a first marathon. If you plan to run the marathon at a faster pace than your long run training pace, then a better rule of thumb for the longest long run is to run the time that you hope to run in the marathon. If that takes 20 miles, then that is long enough. OTOH, if you plan to not "race" the maratjon, but run the marathon at your long run pace with a goal of finishing, then going to 22-23 miles in training makes more sense....although it still isn't necessary to just finish the marathon.

hey Freckles- I'm also training for my first, with similar time goals to you. While I can't give any experienced advice, I will say that I am following a Hidgon plan with 2 20 milers. The first was really hard (it's a big jump from 18 to 20 IMO), and the 2nd was better, but I wish I had time to fit a 3rd in to feel even more confident going into the race. Ah well, next time, right? Anyways just wanted to say that 3 long runs might not be a bad thing if you want to feel really prepared. I don't know if you need to go much over 20 miles during them, but a mile or two over probably won't make a difference once you are done with your 3 week taper. Good luck!

OMG. Good luck. I would start turning some of those x-train days into running days. You will finish, but with weekly mileage that low, it will not be a pleasant experience.My first marathon was a sub 5-hour run, but I peaked at over 60 mpw.

Long runs are overrated. Frankly, your brother and Dad are right. At least partly. It's not necessarily the number of 20+ runs - its the low mileage the rest of the time that concerns me. Worry less about the "long runs," and more about building consistency over the long-term. The "experts" all tend to hype 2-3 long 20+ runs because its a minimum. They figure if you can do that, you can finish your marathon, and you'll end up liking their book. But its mostly bunk. 4 long runs won't kill you and neither will 1. Not if you've got the base mileage. The guy who consistently runs 50+ miles per week is one helluva a lot better off than the guy who gets in the exact number of 20 mile runs Hal Higdon told you to do but rarely hits 30 miles per week. The only true marathon disaster I ever had was the one where I hit every scheduled Higdon/Galloway/Pfitzinger/whatever 20+ miler, but neglected the other runs. And long runs are more a function of exertion and time than distance. There are people here who can run - relatively easily - a 20 mile run in not much over 2 hours. For me, a 20 mile training run is actually longer, time wise, than a race pace marathon. I set my marathon PR without ever going past 18 miles. I now believe - and your mileage may vary - that runs much over 3 hours are counter-productive. Your Dad and bro may be wrong to suggest that one more long run will hurt you (then again, they may right). But I know they're right if they're suggesting that long runs are less important than consistent mileage.

Long runs are overrated. Frankly, your brother and Dad are right. At least partly. It's not necessarily the number of 20+ runs - its the low mileage the rest of the time that concerns me. Worry less about the "long runs," and more about building consistency over the long-term. The "experts" all tend to hype 2-3 long 20+ runs because its a minimum. They figure if you can do that, you can finish your marathon, and you'll end up liking their book. But its mostly bunk. 4 long runs won't kill you and neither will 1. Not if you've got the base mileage. The guy who consistently runs 50+ miles per week is one helluva a lot better off than the guy who gets in the exact number of 20 mile runs Hal Higdon told you to do but rarely hits 30 miles per week. The only true marathon disaster I ever had was the one where I hit every scheduled Higdon/Galloway/Pfitzinger/whatever 20+ miler, but neglected the other runs. And long runs are more a function of exertion and time than distance. There are people here who can run - relatively easily - a 20 mile run in not much over 2 hours. For me, a 20 mile training run is actually longer, time wise, than a race pace marathon. I set my marathon PR without ever going past 18 miles. I now believe - and your mileage may vary - that runs much over 3 hours are counter-productive. Your Dad and bro may be wrong to suggest that one more long run will hurt you (then again, they may right). But I know they're right if they're suggesting that long runs are less important than consistent mileage.

Good post. I agree with most of what you said. A solid mileage base before embarking on a marathon program and total mileage within the marathon program rank above long runs in order of importance. However, the original post was specifically about long runs, not overall marathon training. And, generally, the more long runs the better regardless of training mileage. It really doesn't matter much if they peak at 18, 20 or 22 miles....as long as total mileage is sufficient. But, if, for whatever reason, one is running 40 miles/week or less and not 50-70 miles/week or more, then, by default, the long runs assume the top position of importance. You suggested that youbelieve that runs over 3-hours are counter-productive. You also said that a 20-mile run takes you longer than you race marathons and that you ran your PR without going over 18 miles in training. (BTW, neither did Alberto Salazar....but he ran 150 miles/week or more.) Form all of that I infer that your marathons are run in the 3-hour range. The average marathon time was 4:30 for American men and 5:00 for American women. Would you recommend that they not run longer than 3-hours in training? At a pace slower than marathon race pace, that would mean that the average male marathoner would not run longer than about 12-15 miles and the average female longer than about 10-12 miles. Put another way, men would not run longer than 2/3 the time they plan to run in the marathon and women no longer than 60% of their marathon time. For more comments on this subject, see "Long Run Time/Distance Limits" at http://mysite.verizon.net/jim2wr/id88.html.