Marathon advice needed! (Read 1304 times)

I like the 23 and 26 mile training runs leading up to a marathon. I'm doing a 26 mile final training run next weekend. My fastest marathon times have come following Galloway's schedule including the 26 mile training run. And I've ran 26 mile training runs several times now prior to my marathons. They work fine for me. But it may depend on which training program you are using. Pfitzinger, McMillan and FIRST are training at a higher intensity and 20-22 miles probably works for most of them just fine as a final run.

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?

Hiya Jim. By the way, I've learned much from your site over the last couple years, so thank you. It's nice to have you here. You have a rare knack for putting the complex information into terms a knucklehead like me can grasp. To clarify the above: First, I'm a new runner. I've only been running (semi)seriously for a couple years. The Olympic Trials aren't calling just yet. So my views on the above are based on my own experience and stuff I've learned here. As always, others' mileage may and will vary. And for what its worth, a couple years ago I would have argued exactly the opposite of what I think now. So maybe I'll change my mind again ... It's not that I have anything against long runs. My concern is just that it is really, really common to see runners, especially new marathoners, follow Higdon or Galloway exactly, focusing on the details rather than the broad principles - and the detail that seems to get stressed above all others is a bi-weekly long run. People seem to obsess over them, get nervous if they miss one ... or if a 23 miler turned it an 18 miler ... and I do think that's missing the point. I think overall mileage and a solid base are far, far more important than whether you did 4 20-milers instead of 2, or whatever. When I first started, I was the same way as most folks about the long runs. That big run was everything - sometimes to the exclusion of base mileage. As I alluded to above, the only really painful marathon I've run involved that mistake - I figured if I hit the long runs the rest didn't matter so much. I learned an ouch-filled lesson as a result. I personally believe a few things about long runs, at least as they apply to me. First - there is some point of diminishing returns, at which I'm tearing down my body rather than building it up. And I do think its pretty close to 3 hours on the road. I run a 3:40 marathon, probably 3:30 this year - and I think spending more than 3 hours at a time can do more harm than good. If I do it, its probably because its a nice day out and I don't feel like quitting yet, not because I think its doing me much good. Which ain't all bad. To answer your next question, no - I don't think a 5 hour marathoner needs to do 4-5 hour training runs. In fact, I suspect for some of them its a bad idea, unless they're running 50 miles per week. Or more. The only benefits I see to runs that long are 1) it might just be a fine day for a really long run or 2) the psychological benefit of knowing you can do it. And that benefit shouldn't be underestimated. I'm running my first ultra this year, and I'm pretty much terrified because I've never done it. I don't think an 8-hour training run would actually help me physically ... but it might mentally. I like my long runs. I actually do one weekly, in tough hills, 17 miles, because thats how far it is to do a loop around the park, and its one helluva pretty park. When I ran the last marathon there (Trent's HH Flying Monkey), I accidentally didn't run farther than that in training. It just never happened. I worried about it a bit, but it turned out to be the right thing to do: my legs have never felt fresher at mile 24 of a marathon. I'm rambling, so let me sum it up in a couple sentences: I think weekly mileage is far, far more important than the long runs. I actually think the best way to run a good marathon is to get in solid base mileage a couple months before the race. For me at least, I can predict how well I'll do in an April marathon by looking at my mileage in January and February. I think long runs are part of the process (and a fun part), but they don't deserve the attention they get. And I think that focus does a disservice to a lot of new runners. To answer your last question: yeah - I actually *do* think that a lot of slow runners could run better, happier, faster marathons, with less risk of burnout or injury, without ever going past 15 miles in training ... ASSUMING they were running 45-50 miles per week or more and running some hills. I think Salazar had the right idea ... although I think his 150 miles per week (I've heard he hit over 200 sometimes) can be scaled back to something reasonable for us mortal folks. For me, its about 50 mpw, maxing at 70. I'm actually going to test this to an extreme someday - try to run a hard marathon without ever going over 12-13 miles in training, but running 60 miles per week for 3-4 months, doing lots of hills and marathon speed work. I'll let you know if I keel over and die as a result. I'll bet I don't though. As for the original poster, I guess my point was just that, in my opinion, his concern over his 20+ milers may be misplaced - and that he might be more successful if he worried less about that and more about building that base. If he gets up to 40 miles per week, I think the rest will take care of itself; conversely, if he doesn't build that mileage, no perfect number of long runs is going to help much. I think he and I and most runners would benefit most from the simplest advice: just run more. I don't think anything replaces lots and lots of easy, consistent miles. But "just run more" doesn't sell books. And I think some of the leading authors benefit from people believing there's some magic combination of 21-milers or something. Just my opinion, based on a couple years of trial and error, finding what works for me. YMMV.

I would let the 5 hour marathoner stay on their feet for 5+ hours in a long run. I did it for my first marathon and I did just fine. Of course my peak mileage was above 60 mpw for that marathon. Yeah. I'm a mileage whore.

If your goal is finishing a marathon, the hardest part is getting the the starting line. If you get on race day without injuries, enough training miles and at least one 20+ mile run, your will will get you to the finish line. The tricky part is knowing the fine line between enough miles (under training) an too many (injury). Listen to your body and take a rest day if you feel that your legs are sore. Cut the length of your long runs if you feel you had a hard time finishing the previous one. - R

So - I don't think there is a hard-and-fast rule. If I were to help someone, I would emphasize a good and reasonable amount of mileage before I would get all excited about the exact long-run distance.

This is pretty much how I feel. I think the long run is way overrated by the typical marathoner, but that's only becuase everything else is underrated. When I'm training for a marathon, my long run is still my single most important workout of the week. It's just not more important than the other 6-8 runs combined.

This is a great thread that really applies to my effort at Houston on Sunday. I BQ'ed but struggled at end. I also read Jim2's website frequently. In his "Best way to improve marathon time" article he lists total mileage and number of LR's as number 1 and 2 in importance. As I reflected on my performance I couldn't have agreed more. I ran San Antonio in November in 3:44 off max weeks of low 40's and one 20 miler. In the next 9 weeks I had two 20 milers and three 50 mile weeks and my time came down to 3:32. I think the most important thing for me to do next year to get down to 3:20 is to up mileage into mid-60's. The second most important thing will be to run several more 20 milers. As a first time marathoner last year, I do think my two 20 milers and one 25 miler were very important psychologically but not critical to finishing the race.

In his "Best way to improve marathon time" article he lists total mileage and number of LR's as number 1 and 2 in importance. As I reflected on my performance I couldn't have agreed more. I ran San Antonio in November in 3:44 off max weeks of low 40's and one 20 miler. In the next 9 weeks I had two 20 milers and three 50 mile weeks and my time came down to 3:32. I think the most important thing for me to do next year to get down to 3:20 is to up mileage into mid-60's. The second most important thing will be to run several more 20 milers. As a first time marathoner last year, I do think my two 20 milers and one 25 miler were very important psychologically but not critical to finishing the race.

Don't underplay threshold training, either! It's a close third in order of importance.