General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2011-09-20 12:44 PM
in reply to: #3693479

User image

Master
1883
1000500100100100252525
San Antone, Texas
Subject: RE: Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage
Porfirio - 2011-09-20 11:40 AM
Donskiman - 2011-09-20 11:32 AM

Scout7 - 2011-09-20 10:02 AM I think you're better off not trying to push for 60, but holding in the 50s for three weeks. One day of speed work is fine, especially if you're used to it. Personally, I think two weeks' taper is excessive, but I recognize that the ability to recover and absorb training is highly individualized. It also depends on what your taper looks like.

If you're able to run that HM in the 1:40ish range, you may be able to run sub 3:30. If you find yourself really falling off the pace toward the end of the HM, 3:30 may be unlikely.

Really!? 1:40HM may = sub 3:30? I can easily huff/puff a sub 1:30HM (done it several times this year). But I'm far from confident that I can do a sub 3:30 in a full, let alone a 3:30 (hence my original post). Alright then, game on! 

I think if you can run a sub 1:30 HM, you can definitely hit a sub 3:30 26.2.  In my HIM training I've been averaging about 20-25 mpw running, and my HM PR was 1:51 up until this past sunday.  I ran a 20 mile race where I PR'd my HM (1:46) and finished even stronger at 2:42 for 20 miles, and felt so strong at the end I could have kept on going the same pace for 6.2 more.  That would have finished me just over 3:30 I think (8:00 pace).

So yes, definitely possible and doable. You just have to believe that you can do it.  Running is a mental game.  and if I can do it with a 1:46 HM PR, you can do it running sub 1:30s!

Now I'm wondering how fast of a 26.2 I can pull off if I focus just on running after my HIM in OCtober....



2011-09-20 12:45 PM
in reply to: #3693441

User image

Champion
7233
5000200010010025
Subject: RE: Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage
moldoverb - 2011-09-20 10:11 AM

newbz - 2011-09-20 12:13 AM
goran007 - 2011-09-19 10:04 PM In my opinion the longer base mileage you have the better your marathon will be. If you give yourself time to prepare for a marathon, you don't need to run very high mileage in order to run well and fast. I've been training for 4 months already for a marathon that's in December and my highest mileage week will be 55. I'm planning on running 3:15 or a little bit faster if my fast friend is pacing me. They key is to run your long runs fairly fast. Most people run too slow on their longer mileage days.
Most people don't run enough. The long run is not their issue at all. In my opinion the long run comes a bit down the list on order of importance for a marathon, after consistency/volume, and marathon paced work. Saying you are going to run X time off Y volume, whether its your first or 30th, means very little without other information, and means nothing in regards to whether that training is actually wildly effective for you. It's like me saying I have an athlete that ran a 3:24 off of 30mpw, and then saying to someone else that that is all they should run because he ran that fast. It doesn't take into account that he had only been training for 3 months (see just started runnign for the first time in his life 3 months before the race). You could say that 30mpw is plenty based off that. A year later he is now running 70-80 miles a week, and looking to run sub 2:50 18 months into learning how to run, and times are dropping all the time. To say less mileage is needed with a marathon, when that number is in the 50-80 mile range, is in my mind sorta stupid unless there are other issues at work (injuries, life, etc), but from a pure training standpoint, that is very much at the low end of what it would take to run/race a solid marathon for most people, and i dont mean a few peak weeks at those numbers, but rather, getting to where you can run back to back blocks of weeks or more Once you can start running that much, then maybe the long runs/speedwork can start to come in as your limiters, but until you can throw down that volume the longer run plays less of a part in the race than most people think.

Hi Dave. I disagree with some of what you say (partly because I enjoy doing so). The point isn't that less mileage is needed, the point is that the mileage needed AND types of workouts will depend on a lot of factors. What are his goals? To finish, run sub-4:00, or sub-3:00. What is his base and experience? I would say for most people it IS the long run that is most important. No matter how you cut it, 26.2 miles is tough! You need to get used to being on your feet and moving for 3+ hours and the only way to do that is to run long. I would agree that the faster you want to go, the more important speedwork and tempo runs become. I'd also argue that while speedwork makes you faster, it's the tempo run that teaches you to hold that pace. If you want to build mileage, build it on the tempo runs, but not at the expense of being able to do 20-22 miles on a long run.

I think it's important to point out that people are different and respond differently to training regimens. Saying you need to run 80 miles a week or 40 miles a week doesn't take any of that into account. As you point out.




I'd agree some, disagree some here. I agree that everyone is different, and you do need to take personal goals, abilities, etc into account. No arguing there. Let me re-phrase my opinion. I think that, within any given persons schedule, running the most volume you are personal capable of, and still getting in the other workouts, is by far the best method for a successful marathon.
If that means dropping some of your faster running, I personally would advise doing so, at least for a while. In other words (and these numbers are pulled outo f thin air), if an athlete has a choice of doing a longer long run + speedwork, or dropping that long run a bit and dropping the speedwork in favor of higher volume + some tempo/marathon paced work, with say 40 vs 60 miles a week, i'd 100% recommend the latter. Without the volume to support it, that long run is really not going to give you a ton fitness wise, it may teach you to understand what it feels like to be on your feet that long(which i agree is important), but its not going to magically fix falling apart later in the race. All of this is also assuming you want to run as fast as you can on that given day and not just finish, which i know is a lot of people's goals and that's fine.
2011-09-20 1:14 PM
in reply to: #3693479

User image

Expert
2555
20005002525
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Subject: RE: Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage
Porfirio - 2011-09-20 10:40 AM
Donskiman - 2011-09-20 11:32 AM

Scout7 - 2011-09-20 10:02 AM I think you're better off not trying to push for 60, but holding in the 50s for three weeks. One day of speed work is fine, especially if you're used to it. Personally, I think two weeks' taper is excessive, but I recognize that the ability to recover and absorb training is highly individualized. It also depends on what your taper looks like.

If you're able to run that HM in the 1:40ish range, you may be able to run sub 3:30. If you find yourself really falling off the pace toward the end of the HM, 3:30 may be unlikely.

Really!? 1:40HM may = sub 3:30? I can easily huff/puff a sub 1:30HM (done it several times this year). But I'm far from confident that I can do a sub 3:30 in a full, let alone a 3:30 (hence my original post). Alright then, game on! 

If you can't run 3:30 off of a sub 1:30 HM, then you either have a problem with pacing or a serious lack of endurance. That's a difference of more than a minute per mile in pace.

What have you done in your previous marathons? Gone out too hard and faded badly at the end, gone out so easy that it was impossible to make it up at the end, or just didn't put much effort into it at all? If you're capable of holding a 7:00 pace for 13.1, then holding 7:30-7:45 for 26.2 shouldn't be a big stretch and that will easily take you sub 3:30. If you can hold 7:00 for 13.1, you can slow to almost 9:00 for the second half and still break 3:30.

2011-09-20 2:18 PM
in reply to: #3693582

User image

Pro
5755
50005001001002525
Subject: RE: Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage
newbz - 2011-09-20 12:45 PM
moldoverb - 2011-09-20 10:11 AM

newbz - 2011-09-20 12:13 AM
goran007 - 2011-09-19 10:04 PM In my opinion the longer base mileage you have the better your marathon will be. If you give yourself time to prepare for a marathon, you don't need to run very high mileage in order to run well and fast. I've been training for 4 months already for a marathon that's in December and my highest mileage week will be 55. I'm planning on running 3:15 or a little bit faster if my fast friend is pacing me. They key is to run your long runs fairly fast. Most people run too slow on their longer mileage days.
Most people don't run enough. The long run is not their issue at all. In my opinion the long run comes a bit down the list on order of importance for a marathon, after consistency/volume, and marathon paced work. Saying you are going to run X time off Y volume, whether its your first or 30th, means very little without other information, and means nothing in regards to whether that training is actually wildly effective for you. It's like me saying I have an athlete that ran a 3:24 off of 30mpw, and then saying to someone else that that is all they should run because he ran that fast. It doesn't take into account that he had only been training for 3 months (see just started runnign for the first time in his life 3 months before the race). You could say that 30mpw is plenty based off that. A year later he is now running 70-80 miles a week, and looking to run sub 2:50 18 months into learning how to run, and times are dropping all the time. To say less mileage is needed with a marathon, when that number is in the 50-80 mile range, is in my mind sorta stupid unless there are other issues at work (injuries, life, etc), but from a pure training standpoint, that is very much at the low end of what it would take to run/race a solid marathon for most people, and i dont mean a few peak weeks at those numbers, but rather, getting to where you can run back to back blocks of weeks or more Once you can start running that much, then maybe the long runs/speedwork can start to come in as your limiters, but until you can throw down that volume the longer run plays less of a part in the race than most people think.

Hi Dave. I disagree with some of what you say (partly because I enjoy doing so). The point isn't that less mileage is needed, the point is that the mileage needed AND types of workouts will depend on a lot of factors. What are his goals? To finish, run sub-4:00, or sub-3:00. What is his base and experience? I would say for most people it IS the long run that is most important. No matter how you cut it, 26.2 miles is tough! You need to get used to being on your feet and moving for 3+ hours and the only way to do that is to run long. I would agree that the faster you want to go, the more important speedwork and tempo runs become. I'd also argue that while speedwork makes you faster, it's the tempo run that teaches you to hold that pace. If you want to build mileage, build it on the tempo runs, but not at the expense of being able to do 20-22 miles on a long run.

I think it's important to point out that people are different and respond differently to training regimens. Saying you need to run 80 miles a week or 40 miles a week doesn't take any of that into account. As you point out.

I'd agree some, disagree some here. I agree that everyone is different, and you do need to take personal goals, abilities, etc into account. No arguing there. Let me re-phrase my opinion. I think that, within any given persons schedule, running the most volume you are personal capable of, and still getting in the other workouts, is by far the best method for a successful marathon. If that means dropping some of your faster running, I personally would advise doing so, at least for a while. In other words (and these numbers are pulled outo f thin air), if an athlete has a choice of doing a longer long run + speedwork, or dropping that long run a bit and dropping the speedwork in favor of higher volume + some tempo/marathon paced work, with say 40 vs 60 miles a week, i'd 100% recommend the latter. Without the volume to support it, that long run is really not going to give you a ton fitness wise, it may teach you to understand what it feels like to be on your feet that long(which i agree is important), but its not going to magically fix falling apart later in the race. All of this is also assuming you want to run as fast as you can on that given day and not just finish, which i know is a lot of people's goals and that's fine.

Ok, now we're in agreement. Without the base you're still going to fade. There's a difference between hurting at mile 20, which is going to happen anyway, and not having the conditioning to continue. I need a base of at least 40 miles a week to run a marathon that I would be satisfied with. I needed 50-52 to run fast enough to BQ last year. The difference between 40 and 50 was primarily the number and length of tempo runs. I'm a big believer in train fast to race fast. Lots of LSD will give you a ton of weekly miles, but I can't see how it would make for a fast race.

BTW, I'm running the Philly Marathon 3 weeks after Marine Corps. I've never run 2 close together, and that will be 3 marathons this year. But my legs still sink in the pool

2011-09-20 2:21 PM
in reply to: #3693479

User image

Champion
10668
500050005001002525
Tacoma, Washington
Subject: RE: Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage
Porfirio - 2011-09-20 9:40 AM
Donskiman - 2011-09-20 11:32 AM

Scout7 - 2011-09-20 10:02 AM I think you're better off not trying to push for 60, but holding in the 50s for three weeks. One day of speed work is fine, especially if you're used to it. Personally, I think two weeks' taper is excessive, but I recognize that the ability to recover and absorb training is highly individualized. It also depends on what your taper looks like.

If you're able to run that HM in the 1:40ish range, you may be able to run sub 3:30. If you find yourself really falling off the pace toward the end of the HM, 3:30 may be unlikely.

Really!? 1:40HM may = sub 3:30? I can easily huff/puff a sub 1:30HM (done it several times this year). But I'm far from confident that I can do a sub 3:30 in a full, let alone a 3:30 (hence my original post). Alright then, game on! 

I remember hearing from some very experienced high-level coaches that, given an equal level of conditioning for the event, you can expect a 5% reduction in pace for a doubling of the distance. So that would mean your 1:30x2x1.05 would be your marathon time... IF you're as well trained for the marathon as you were for the half.

2011-09-20 2:29 PM
in reply to: #3693785

User image

Pro
5755
50005001001002525
Subject: RE: Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage
briderdt - 2011-09-20 2:21 PM
Porfirio - 2011-09-20 9:40 AM
Donskiman - 2011-09-20 11:32 AM

Scout7 - 2011-09-20 10:02 AM I think you're better off not trying to push for 60, but holding in the 50s for three weeks. One day of speed work is fine, especially if you're used to it. Personally, I think two weeks' taper is excessive, but I recognize that the ability to recover and absorb training is highly individualized. It also depends on what your taper looks like.

If you're able to run that HM in the 1:40ish range, you may be able to run sub 3:30. If you find yourself really falling off the pace toward the end of the HM, 3:30 may be unlikely.

Really!? 1:40HM may = sub 3:30? I can easily huff/puff a sub 1:30HM (done it several times this year). But I'm far from confident that I can do a sub 3:30 in a full, let alone a 3:30 (hence my original post). Alright then, game on! 

I remember hearing from some very experienced high-level coaches that, given an equal level of conditioning for the event, you can expect a 5% reduction in pace for a doubling of the distance. So that would mean your 1:30x2x1.05 would be your marathon time... IF you're as well trained for the marathon as you were for the half.

If you plug 1:30 HM into the McMillan calculator you get 3:09:49. If you plug it into the Runners World calculator you get 3:04:46. The McMillan calculator was accurate for me last year to within 2 minutes. I had to stop and pee

If you can't do 3:30 and are uninjured  then you haven't trained properly. IMHO.



2011-09-20 2:34 PM
in reply to: #3693779

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage
moldoverb - 2011-09-20 3:18 PM

Ok, now we're in agreement. Without the base you're still going to fade. There's a difference between hurting at mile 20, which is going to happen anyway, and not having the conditioning to continue. I need a base of at least 40 miles a week to run a marathon that I would be satisfied with. I needed 50-52 to run fast enough to BQ last year. The difference between 40 and 50 was primarily the number and length of tempo runs. I'm a big believer in train fast to race fast. Lots of LSD will give you a ton of weekly miles, but I can't see how it would make for a fast race.

BTW, I'm running the Philly Marathon 3 weeks after Marine Corps. I've never run 2 close together, and that will be 3 marathons this year. But my legs still sink in the pool



I'm being nit-picky here, so feel free to ignore me at this point.

But, I disagree that hurting at mile 20 is a foregone conclusion, depending on what is meant by hurting. The last marathon I ran, I felt fairly strong at mile 20, so I actually started pushing the effort up, so any hurt I experienced was self-inflicted, and the standard hurting associated with running hard. After the race, I had no lingering issues.

I also disagree with the "train fast to race fast" mentality, and that lots of LSD not having an effect on race performance. Yes, a good, well-balanced training plan needs to incorporate harder efforts (which is what I take the "fast" part to mean in practice). But the overall amount of that type of training with respect to total training volume should be relatively low. I don't think we specifically disagree with that sentiment, but I just dislike the "train fast, race fast" phrase because it puts too much emphasis on harder efforts, and can give the impression that those types of workouts are more important (they aren't).

LSD... I dislike this term, not because of its actual meaning, but because it has been twisted from its original purpose. LSD means "Long STEADY Distance", but it somehow got changed to "SLOW", and thus people ended up with the notion that long runs are supposed to be run at an effort level that is easier than the rest of their runs. In actuality, the original intent of these runs was to run them at a steady, consistent level of effort or pace. They are not meant to be run easier than your everyday, run of the mill runs; at least some of the time they should be at a moderate effort level. I think that distinction is something that people have missed over time.
2011-09-20 3:12 PM
in reply to: #3693802

User image

Pro
5755
50005001001002525
Subject: RE: Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage
Scout7 - 2011-09-20 2:34 PM
moldoverb - 2011-09-20 3:18 PM

Ok, now we're in agreement. Without the base you're still going to fade. There's a difference between hurting at mile 20, which is going to happen anyway, and not having the conditioning to continue. I need a base of at least 40 miles a week to run a marathon that I would be satisfied with. I needed 50-52 to run fast enough to BQ last year. The difference between 40 and 50 was primarily the number and length of tempo runs. I'm a big believer in train fast to race fast. Lots of LSD will give you a ton of weekly miles, but I can't see how it would make for a fast race.

BTW, I'm running the Philly Marathon 3 weeks after Marine Corps. I've never run 2 close together, and that will be 3 marathons this year. But my legs still sink in the pool

I'm being nit-picky here, so feel free to ignore me at this point. But, I disagree that hurting at mile 20 is a foregone conclusion, depending on what is meant by hurting. The last marathon I ran, I felt fairly strong at mile 20, so I actually started pushing the effort up, so any hurt I experienced was self-inflicted, and the standard hurting associated with running hard. After the race, I had no lingering issues. I also disagree with the "train fast to race fast" mentality, and that lots of LSD not having an effect on race performance. Yes, a good, well-balanced training plan needs to incorporate harder efforts (which is what I take the "fast" part to mean in practice). But the overall amount of that type of training with respect to total training volume should be relatively low. I don't think we specifically disagree with that sentiment, but I just dislike the "train fast, race fast" phrase because it puts too much emphasis on harder efforts, and can give the impression that those types of workouts are more important (they aren't). LSD... I dislike this term, not because of its actual meaning, but because it has been twisted from its original purpose. LSD means "Long STEADY Distance", but it somehow got changed to "SLOW", and thus people ended up with the notion that long runs are supposed to be run at an effort level that is easier than the rest of their runs. In actuality, the original intent of these runs was to run them at a steady, consistent level of effort or pace. They are not meant to be run easier than your everyday, run of the mill runs; at least some of the time they should be at a moderate effort level. I think that distinction is something that people have missed over time.

There is nothing that you say that I disagree with. LSD has indeed come to mean slow, and there was a recent thread about this too. Steady means steady EFFORT. Not racing, but not plodding along where you aren't getting any aerobic benefits, either. I'm also not saying 50% of your mileage is speedwork/tempo unless you're looking to get injured. But if you ran 50 miles a week and all your workouts are at 10 minute miles, don't expect to run a 3:30 marathon.

Hurt is relative. I've run marathons where I never felt better at mile 20, and I ran one last year where I bonked and it was a supreme effort to get through miles 18-21. I like the former better. Negative splits in a marathon are a joy.

2011-09-20 3:13 PM
in reply to: #3693802

User image

DC
Subject: RE: Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage


I'm being nit-picky here, so feel free to ignore me at this point. But, I disagree that hurting at mile 20 is a foregone conclusion, depending on what is meant by hurting. The last marathon I ran, I felt fairly strong at mile 20, so I actually started pushing the effort up, so any hurt I experienced was self-inflicted, and the standard hurting associated with running hard. After the race, I had no lingering issues. I also disagree with the "train fast to race fast" mentality, and that lots of LSD not having an effect on race performance. Yes, a good, well-balanced training plan needs to incorporate harder efforts (which is what I take the "fast" part to mean in practice). But the overall amount of that type of training with respect to total training volume should be relatively low. I don't think we specifically disagree with that sentiment, but I just dislike the "train fast, race fast" phrase because it puts too much emphasis on harder efforts, and can give the impression that those types of workouts are more important (they aren't). LSD... I dislike this term, not because of its actual meaning, but because it has been twisted from its original purpose. LSD means "Long STEADY Distance", but it somehow got changed to "SLOW", and thus people ended up with the notion that long runs are supposed to be run at an effort level that is easier than the rest of their runs. In actuality, the original intent of these runs was to run them at a steady, consistent level of effort or pace. They are not meant to be run easier than your everyday, run of the mill runs; at least some of the time they should be at a moderate effort level. I think that distinction is something that people have missed over time.

I add nothing to your post w/this post, just want to say: Man, you're dropping some science! Very helpful perspective. 

2011-09-20 4:33 PM
in reply to: #3691787

User image

Veteran
232
10010025
Charlotte
Gold member
Subject: RE: Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage

I'm really glad to see this thread.  I did my first HIM a week and a half ago, with my run mileage peaking at 30.  I'd like to shoot for a marathon next March and there's such variety in the beginner plans out there that it's a bit daunting.  I did my best to infer the underlying 'rules' behind those plans and came up with what I feel like is a reasonable approach to get me from here to there.

What I really worry about is the medium runs each week.  Due to family/work considerations they'll have to be early morning runs before work, and I'm just not sure I'll be able to do more than two 12-mile runs each week during the week for those.  (And to be honest, even that feels a bit aspirational from here.)

Scout, I really value your commentary on this and other running threads.  One recurring theme in your comments is the need for goal-focused workouts rather than blindly following a plan.  I've done what feels like a decent amount of reading and research and have found the McMillan website very helpful in terms of approaching different types of runs, different paces/effort levels for tempo, steady, and long, etc., but there's still an element of faith involved. 

With that context, I have two questions for Scout and anyone else who has the time and inclination to chip in: First, do you have a resource that you would recommend as a one stop shop / training bible that you'd recommend, and secondly, would ~4 peak weeks around 2x6, 2x12, 1x20+ with shorter weeks between and some bike/swim cross training feel grossly inadequate?  That's clearly higher than, say, the Higdon beginner plan, but while I'm certainly nowhere near BQ-level I'd like to do more than just finish and spend the next week in pain.

2011-09-20 4:42 PM
in reply to: #3694029

User image

Champion
5781
5000500100100252525
Northridge, California
Subject: RE: Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage
bruce_v - 2011-09-20 2:33 PM

would ~4 peak weeks around 2x6, 2x12, 1x20+ with shorter weeks between and some bike/swim cross training feel grossly inadequate?  That's clearly higher than, say, the Higdon beginner plan, but while I'm certainly nowhere near BQ-level I'd like to do more than just finish and spend the next week in pain.

I'll just chime in far enough to say that I BQ'ed on less volume than that during my peak period...my four biggest weeks were in the 40-52 mile range.  As with much of this thread, obviously that's just one more "n=1" piece of data, but if you are consistent and disciplined and don't waste the volume you do put in, you can finish comfortably on what you propose or a bit less...it is absolutely not "grossly inadequate," IMO.



2011-09-20 4:51 PM
in reply to: #3694029

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage
Bruce,

With regard to training materials, I generally refer to this document. I think that it provides a pretty decent guide to setting up a training plan, breaks down training into three stages, and helps to outline some basic workouts.

Beyond that, I would also recommend "The Competitive Runner's Handbook" by Bob Glover. I think it provides the most bang for the buck, as it gives information on training and sample plans for various levels of ability and different race lengths. Also, it doesn't go into the science-y stuff like Daniels, and I tend to glaze over when presented with that sort of information.

As to your second question....

First a caveat: There is always a level of difficulty in saying whether an individual's training plan will meet the stated goals or not, so take what I say with whatever size grain of salt and use whatever color glasses you deem necessary.

I think that the training week you've outlined is decent enough. You're getting in more middle-distance types of runs, which is what I generally like to see. I wouldn't sweat the exact distance on those too much; 12 is fine, but if you do 10, not a big deal. Sometimes those extra two miles give you just enough time to get cleaned up and out the door on time.

Overall, I would say that a plan like that should definitely get you through the race. How you feel afterward is going to be more a function of how well you pace the race, how long you've been running consistently (running 5x week for, say, 6 months would give a person a better chance to handle the pounding), and what you do in the hours after the race. Personally, I've found that, for me, I need to be up and moving around to ensure I don't get all stiff and old man-like. The more you move, the better you'll feel in the following days.

Overall, I think that what you outlined looks decent for peak week training for a beginner/intermediate type of plan (I use those terms to represent overall running and marathon-specific experience, they are not disparaging at all, so I hope no one is offended by this view). I think that the training leading up to those weeks will end up being where you want to focus next; make sure you get in enough to support those weeks, and you'll be good.

Hope that helps.
2011-09-20 4:52 PM
in reply to: #3694045

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage
tcovert - 2011-09-20 5:42 PM

bruce_v - 2011-09-20 2:33 PM

would ~4 peak weeks around 2x6, 2x12, 1x20+ with shorter weeks between and some bike/swim cross training feel grossly inadequate?  That's clearly higher than, say, the Higdon beginner plan, but while I'm certainly nowhere near BQ-level I'd like to do more than just finish and spend the next week in pain.

I'll just chime in far enough to say that I BQ'ed on less volume than that during my peak period...my four biggest weeks were in the 40-52 mile range.  As with much of this thread, obviously that's just one more "n=1" piece of data, but if you are consistent and disciplined and don't waste the volume you do put in, you can finish comfortably on what you propose or a bit less...it is absolutely not "grossly inadequate," IMO.



Yup. Thank you for putting this in a much more succinct way than I managed to.
2011-09-20 8:34 PM
in reply to: #3694054

User image

Champion
7233
5000200010010025
Subject: RE: Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage
Scout7 - 2011-09-20 3:52 PM

tcovert - 2011-09-20 5:42 PM

bruce_v - 2011-09-20 2:33 PM

would ~4 peak weeks around 2x6, 2x12, 1x20+ with shorter weeks between and some bike/swim cross training feel grossly inadequate?  That's clearly higher than, say, the Higdon beginner plan, but while I'm certainly nowhere near BQ-level I'd like to do more than just finish and spend the next week in pain.

I'll just chime in far enough to say that I BQ'ed on less volume than that during my peak period...my four biggest weeks were in the 40-52 mile range.  As with much of this thread, obviously that's just one more "n=1" piece of data, but if you are consistent and disciplined and don't waste the volume you do put in, you can finish comfortably on what you propose or a bit less...it is absolutely not "grossly inadequate," IMO.



Yup. Thank you for putting this in a much more succinct way than I managed to.


Just wanted to put this up again. While I am a very very big advocate of more mileage, I too could probably have run a BQ (at least under the old standards from a year or two ago) on fairly less mileage than I would recommend to most. I say prob could as i've never run a marathon. I've run a 1:24 half off of around 35 mpw, and ran a 50k pacing a friend off that same mileage. I know a lot can happen in that time range from my longest run of 17 mi (prior to the half/50k), and the marathon point, when running at race speeds, but a lot of people can hit that goal on lower mileage. My main argument for more is simple a "how fast can I possibly run" goal.
2011-09-21 7:04 AM
in reply to: #3691787

User image

New user
49
25
Subject: RE: Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage

Here is my real world experience from a relative noob.  Last year in May was my first Marathon ever. My peak mileage was around 40-45 miles per week.  I have 2 kids and a full time job so I sacrificed long slow runs with fast short ones (around 10 miles).  Yes, I did exactly one 20 mile run.  All of my runs were on average 20 seconds faster per mile (6:55/mile) than my expected race pace.  My goal was a 3:10.

I didn't write anything down, but I'd bet that I only hit 40+ miles/week a max of 3 times.  When hit 20 miles I turned on the IPod and immediately dropped my pace group and turn 6:30's until the finish and ran a 3:04:25.  My last mile was in the 5's.

Fast forward to today.  I have a Columbus marathon in about a month.  I am trying to run 50+ miles a week for the next few weeks at a similar pace 6:55/mile to get ready.  75% of these runs are 10 miles or more. My goal is to run under 3 hours this time.  We'll see how everything works out.

2011-09-21 7:37 AM
in reply to: #3694242

User image

Veteran
232
10010025
Charlotte
Gold member
Subject: RE: Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage
newbz - 2011-09-20 9:34 PM
Scout7 - 2011-09-20 3:52 PM
tcovert - 2011-09-20 5:42 PM
bruce_v - 2011-09-20 2:33 PM

would ~4 peak weeks around 2x6, 2x12, 1x20+ with shorter weeks between and some bike/swim cross training feel grossly inadequate? 

it is absolutely not "grossly inadequate," IMO.

Yup. Thank you for putting this in a much more succinct way than I managed to.

Just wanted to put this up again. 

Thanks everyone.  I read about folks doing 80/week, or the BarryP plan where to do a 24 mile run  you'd need to be doing 80 (24/16/16/8/8/8) that week.  Thanks for talking me down off the ledge.



2011-09-21 8:02 AM
in reply to: #3691787

User image

Veteran
364
1001001002525
Columbus
Subject: RE: Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage

My marathon tidbit since my first is Columbus coming up in a few weeks.  This is my first marathon and I started with using the BT Ironman training plan as I was biking too but backing down the swimming.  I then switched to Hal Higdon's Advanced plan which I have been sticking to.

The one 13.1 distance I did was in 1:36:xx without fluids and it was a day I just felt like running.  My recent LSD runs were pace set so I tried to keep a pace and maintain it reasonably over the 20mile run.  This past Saturday I did one but sped up in the end after reading McMillan and his idea on speeding up on some of the LSD runs.  I felt great other than I went from an 8:45 avg early to a low 7's by the end.

I plan to run the Columbus Marathon in sub-3:30 with never touching 50 miles but maybe high 40s.  I just love to run.  Do I look at my calander and think Tempo run?  NO.  I just run how I feel.  Sometimes I pick it up for a little interval here and there but mostly I run because I enjoy it.  If I wanted to go sub-3:00 then I may stick closer to a plan and increase mileage but I think it depends on the person.  If they LOVE to run then they can do better with less I think than someone who is shlepping along because they want to run in Boston

But it is just my $.02 which isn't worth very much.

2011-09-21 9:33 AM
in reply to: #3691787

User image


232
10010025
Subject: RE: Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage

Granted I'm not fast (my PR of 5 marathons was 4:28), but for my PR marathon I followed the FIRST program and ran only 3x/week.  One long run (peaking at 2 20 milers), one interval session (mixed bag of 400- to 2000- meter repeats, varied each week, usually covered 6 or 7 miles), and one tempo run (typically 6-10 miles), so usually low 30s mpw, plus biking once a week for cross training.  Now it was also my last marathon, so I could have been faster just from the cumulative effect of several years of doing this.

Anyone I know who has gone sub-4 hours puts in more mileage than this, but I'm just sharing my story for those of you out there who want to run a marathon and may also be doing tri's or simply don't have time in your life to run 70-80 mpw - it is possible to get it done on less training. One key to the FIRST program is there are no slow easy runs - you make those 3 runs count, even the long run is done with a little more effort than a lot of other plans would dictate - but you're also more rested.

 

 

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Your 26.2 PR-Weekly Mileage Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2