Go figure
The following quote is from Ian Torrence, who I believe is Katrina's (RedSparkle) coach. While the article is titled "Ultramarathon Training Volume," I believe it is applicable to marathon training and training generally.
"Though the human body is well designed for running, it wasn’t built to run all the time. Even if you’ve been smart and patient with your volume buildup, there will come a point at which you can add no more. Once you go beyond 60–70 miles per week or eight-to-ten hours per week, depending on your age, genetics, and past running experience, you begin to walk a fine line between what is beneficial and what is harmful." (http://www.irunfar.com/2013/04/ultramarathon-training-volume.html)
With that in mind, here are a few questions:
1) Have you felt like you've approached your own volume ceiling, and if so, why?
2) Do you think he starts to draw the line in the right place, at 60-70 mpw?
3) Do you feel like volume is the biggest limiting factor to your own marathon performance?
Trying to find some more hay to restock the barn
To get us started:
1) I don't think I've approached my volume ceiling. Last cycle, I peaked at 109.2 miles for a week, and felt like I handled it fine. However, my average over my 24 week cycle, primarily due to some really low weeks, was only around 70mpw. Perhaps if I tried to hold an average closer to 90-100 mpw, I would start to really feel the effects. Clearly, I don't think I could hold that volume throughout a full year, but for a single marathon cycle it does seem attainable.
2) For me, I see the line as being a little too low. If one is running easy runs slowly enough, I see time as more of a limiting factor than volume itself. In fact, it seems as though the more I've run, the less susceptible to injury I've become.
3) All I know is that by drastically increasing my mileage, my marathon performance vastly improved. In order not to fatigue late in the marathon, I think it's essential that the mileage is there (and not just in the 40-50mpw range, but beyond). It'll be interesting to see, as I continue to push for faster times, if there is a point at which adding volume is no longer the answer and adding more speed becomes necessary.
Why not, I'll play along:
1) I am not sure, but I don't think so. My highest week so far has been about 62, but that was an unusually high week for me; most of my weeks at that time were around the 40-50 mile range. Putting 3 50-mile weeks in a row was definitely tough for me at the time, but I don't see that as much as an absolute volume ceiling for me, just what my volume ceiling was at the time.
2) I like where he sets the volume ceiling in terms of time per week. Lydiard sets it around the same place (though a little higher) at 9 1/2- 10 1/2 hours per week. This makes much more sense to me than limiting it in numbers of miles; it takes me ~10 hours a week to run 60 miles (at an average pace of around 10:00) so my theoretical 60 miles/week is the same in terms of time as a faster person running 80 miles a week, or a slower person running 50 miles a week. I also think that 60 miles a week feels about the same now to me as 50 mpw did when I was running 12:00 miles.
3) Yes, absolutely. My endurance is by far the thing I'm weakest at. Though I have improved at all distances from the mile to the marathon and can't complain about that, the gap between my slowest race paces and longest race paces is very wide (3:15 from the mile to the marathon), and I have a sharp dropoff in pace around the 15K-HM mark. I know my endurance would be better if my volume were higher, but time is a limiting factor for me. I do what I can but I feel like I can't manage doubles with my schedule (I get home from work around 8:00-9:00) which limits my volume to what it is. But it's close to the most I can handle right now, so I'm happy enough with what I'm doing.
Are we there, yet?
1) Have you felt like you've approached your own volume ceiling, and if so, why? 2) Do you think he starts to draw the line in the right place, at 60-70 mpw? 3) Do you feel like volume is the biggest limiting factor to your own marathon performance?
1) Not at this point, but I think I have in the past. What small gains, if any, from going beyond 70 mpw were such that they weren't apparent to me after putting in 1,000 miles in 3 months. If anything, my shorter race performances were suffering.
2) Around 70 mpw is about where I'd put it. Interestingly it's also at that point that I needed to start running doubles to continue increasing volume.
3) At this point, yes. When I was at a higher volume, I think the biggest limiting factor was my fear of the pain from hitting the wall if I misjudged pace.
2024 Races:
03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles
05/11 - D3 50K 05/25 - What the Duck 12-Hour
06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.
With that in mind, here are a few questions: 1) Have you felt like you've approached your own volume ceiling, and if so, why? 2) Do you think he starts to draw the line in the right place, at 60-70 mpw? 3) Do you feel like volume is the biggest limiting factor to your own marathon performance?
interesting questions...
1. do not feel like I've hit any volume ceiling but maybe a time ceiling. of course that is relative. i could get up a helluva lot earlier and run more than i do. there is a point at which i don't want to give more time to running. then sometimes i feel like i want to, but that fades away too.
2. 60-70 seems on the low side to me. of course i've never averaged near that as i top out at about 55 and will get to over 60 rarely. being on these forums over the years has certainly convinced me that more miles, sensibly done, goes a long way. i've also found that running 6 days a week has kept me feeling pretty good as i know i don't need to kill it on each run.
3. yes, volume makes a difference for me. i used to run marathons for fun on about 30 -35 miles per week with no real goals but just to finish healthy. my average time was 4:00 to 4:15 and i was ok with it. once i kicked up the miles, i "somehow" got faster. even then i knew it was volume. now if i add in training smarter (and heeding some advice learned here), my times have gotten better. still not ready to increase mileage too much...see question 1.
marathon pr - 3:16
1) Physically no, time-wise, yes. 2 weeks ago I hit 100 mpw, and that was work, run, eat, sleep -- literally.
2) I think mpw depends highly on the individual as well. What works for one person may not work for another.
3) Absolutely. If I could run full time (with a good coach), I'd be a hell of a lot faster .
Former Bad Ass
(1) I don't think I have approached my volume ceiling yet, as it seems that the more I increase mileage, the better I feel and the better I can handle it. My highest week this year has been at above 80mpw and I felt I could have easily run 90-100 miles that week except for #3 (explained below).
(2) I think that line is a bit too low but most runners do not reach that point anyway, so who knows.
(3) My limiting factor is not volume, as I mentioned in (1), above, but rather time. That week when I did 80 miles, I also worked 75 hours. It was hard to keep a normal family life, run, and work that much, and I can say with certainty that I cannot do 80-100 miles a week often no matter how nice the volume feels because I don't have the time to run that much. I also do not necessarily want to run that much all the time, with the exception of certain weeks or challenges a year.
Damaris
Just before getting my heel/plantar injury, I was running 75-85 mpw. Sure, it made me a faster runner, but it also got me injured for the first time in 5 years. One week of 100 miles was nothing for me last year. But several weeks of 80-85 miles while training for Boston, with hills and intervals, was too much for this old and not so running experienced body. So my answer to the question: yes, I feel I hit my max mileage. Why? Because I got injured.
In my case, yes. It also happens that running 70 mpw takes me about 10 hours...
I used to think that time was my #1 limiting factor, as in time to run and train more, but now I'd say that I've reached the point where my body simply cannot take more volume, because of my natural ability, and also my age.
But I'd say that at your age, SIAR, and with your speed, you can pack way more than just 70 miles in a week. I'm sure it takes you less than 10 hours, in fact, to run 70 mpw. :-)
PRs: Boston Marathon, 3:27, April 15th 2013
Cornwall Half-Marathon, 1:35, April 27th 2013
18 marathons, 18 BQs since 2010
1) I am nowhere near my volume ceiling. I have just started to regularly run around 40 mpw and I like the benefits. The first few weeks were tough, but now I am recovering from long(ish) runs much faster and have much better endurance. My marathon plan will peak at 55 mpw and I am confident I will be able to handle that. I was always afraid of running more than 20 - 30 mpw, but so far it is working well for me.
2) I really don't know. If I ever get to that level, I will see what I think.
3) At this point, I don't think volume during a single training cycle is my main limiting factor. A bigger factor is a lack of base. I would probably get more benefit from running 2,500 miles in a year than from running 70 mpw for 12 weeks. Of course I am just guessing, but that is what I think.
2013 goals: 800m: 2:20 | mile: 4:59 | 5k: 18:59 | 10k: 39:59 | HM: 1:32 | Marathon: 3:20
Proud Calgarian
FWIW, Katrina's coach WAS Ian Sharman....
No, I think I can do more miles if I was to get the time from work or got the right weather outside to run. Despite putting up around an average of 70mpw right now, I'm a fairweather runner and could definitely stand to do more miles either in the morning or longer runs in the evening. Plus those floods in Calgary and being displaced for a few weeks definitely didn't help my mileage...
I don't think that 60-70 mpw is enough IMO, by the time you do a MLR of 15 and a LR or 20, you're already halfway to 70.
No, I think the biggest limiting factor to my own marathon performance is the proper training to be able to handle the MP miles. Working with a coach is helping me on discipline, but I feel like I could be doing better. If I had a warm venue to work with (like the SW USA), I figure I would be much better off in terms of performance and racing.
2015 Goals and PRs:
5k - 17:59 (18:05); 10k - 35:59 (36:42); HM - 1:19:19 (1:19:59); FM - 2:49:59 (3:05:46)
Pace Prophet
I think this is probably right, but I suspect it's more individual, strongly correlated to age, and more of a time-based than distance-based thing as others have suggested.
I don't think I've approached my volume ceiling. I ran 66mpw for just three weeks before my PR marathon, and I think that holding that kind of level for longer will do me good (so, yes to question 3 as well, although I have speed issues, too). But I do think that 8-10 hours/week is probably about right.
I find the time/volume distinction really interesting. The gist of the responses is that we all think we benefit from being able to increase our total mileage. One of the easiest ways to do that is to run more miles at slower paces. However, if you're using time on your feet as a limiting factor, you're likely to run into the ceiling faster by running more slowly.
How's that for a conundrum?!
Also, I was expecting that most people would say that they felt they'd run into their own ceiling based injury at a certain mileage level. For me, I actually seem to be healthier now that I'm running more.
If I could get off the trails and stop running with some friends just for enjoyment that may be the case. As it stands, pacing for the Mohican 100 a few weeks ago and then the Burning River 100 have really messed with my average paces. Also, we're doing this Wed. trail series thing right now and then we run some very easy miles after.
But generally, you're right. Sadly, I'm kinda in my athletic peak now that I'm in my early 30s. May as well take advantage of it while I can I guess.
1) I have not been running long enough to even come close to my ceiling so no. My approach to running where mileage is concerned has always been on the conservative side, so I am sure there is nowhere to go for me but up, up, up. Should I ever chose to do so that is.
2) I think it is very difficult to throw a number out there and have it apply to everyone. There many runners who weigh less than a flea who would never have the same issues as some of us who are on the heavier side.
3) I am still trying to get a clue, so I have not reached the point where volume would limit my marathon time. If I ever got to that point, I have proven that I can run doubles and not become bored with the sport, so I would welcome that challenge.
Good stuff.
1. No. Since I didn't answer yes, do I still need to say why?
2. Like others have mentioned, this is highly individual, but I bet this is close to the right place, especially for us rec runners. I can only speculate that he has drawed on his experience in making this proclamation at the 60-70 mpw point.
3. A few years ago I would have said yes. I can obviously pack more miles in, but I think I'm running a decent enough volume that I can make gains by adding other things in. I'm not saying no, I guess I'm saying I don't know.