Confused...

[Double]

I actually scan different boards and look at marathon training regiments.  It seems many individuals are really putting in the work.  However, it appears many do the bulk of their mileage leading up to the 4-8 weeks before the taper.  I know this is common, heck I have done it, but isn't the bulk stuff to be done prior to this?  I would use this 4-8 week time to consolidate what I need to do to race the marathon.  It is nice to hear people are hitting big miles for the first time, but I always found it difficult to ramp up mileage AND do tempos, intervals, and long runs. 

I always felt whatever you went into that final 12 weeks before the marathon is what you had to work with.  You made your best calculations, figured what the best three workouts you could do in a week were and pounded it out from there.  The workouts are what they are.  You read the tea leaves and try and make the best adjustments.  You use what you have, hitting workout times just for the sake of thinking it will translate down the road doesn't always work.  You have to save some of that adrenaline for the actual race.  Am I losing it?

[Ryan]

Double, I'm with you fully on this one. Actually, regardless of race distance, I always tend to peak in volume at least 12 weeks out before turning up the intensity to bring myself to peak. It's just how I've learned to build to a peak.

Actually, another thing I've observed is that many marathoners seem to be in a way part time marathoners. While they will put up big numbers in that final 4-8 weeks before the marathon, their yearly volume will often be well below 3000 miles, even below 2500 miles at a surprising frequency. If you're not averaging 50 mpw year-round, are you really putting in the work at a consistent basis required for marathon success? I'm not trying to be hard on anyone who isn't putting in 2500 miles in a year but, when I see people playing up their 80-100 mile weeks only to later hear that they are logging less than 3000 miles or even less than 2500 miles over the course of the year, I see something wrong with that and I think the late volume peaks you mention are part of that.

[runner1]

I am not sure I agree with you on this one. I have run 22 marathons all under 2:39 and 15 of them well under 2:30. My average daily mileage is barely over eight a day. When I tried to peak for a marathon, I started twelve weeks out also. I was never big into quantity and would only run six to eight on my easy days. On my hard days though I busted my butt and ran workouts that if I could finish them, the marathon would be easy. These workouts were 15-20 miles long with sub 5 miles in the very late stages. I think in my 25 years of logged miles I only have three years over 3000 miles. As for long runs I would only do two or  three twenty milers, which looking back I probably ran too fast of a pace, but at the time it felt easy.  I hated to lose and had the ability,mentally, to just not give up and literally force my body to do what it did not want to do. Which for the following week or two let me know it.  I agree with the sentiment that if you believe in what you are doing it will work. After all isn't everything 90% mental??       

[Andrew A.]

There are exceptions to every rule.

[Ryan]

I don't doubt that you've accomplished what you say you have on the training you mention. However, I'm sure you've also hung around some sub-2:40 and sub-2:30 types. Wouldn't you agree that your training is pretty rare in these circles? Having hung around with some people of this capability, I'd say it's much more common to see guys logging 3000, 3500, or even 4000+ miles per year. Even of the relatively low-mileage crew, I don't see many bouncing around widely enough that they are running 80-100 MPW at times during a year in which they log less than 3000 miles in total. This wide variation of volume, as opposed to more consistency and balance, is what concerns me probably even more than whatever the final number may be.

[runner1]

Actually, the two guys I trained with most, who both ran faster than me (2:19 and 2:20..I was two minutes slower than them) did the same as I did. I guess what we feel we never did was embellish our workouts and probably rounded down our mileage. Which would amount to no more than 3-4 miles a week on the strong side. I can say that due to other commitments in life (kids,wife, job etc...) we tried to get everything out of  what mileage we did. We did have some high mileage weeks. I think I have gone over 100 three times in my life but it was not intentional and at the end of that particular year, which was my highest ever, I think I was around 3500-3600 for the year. I actually think what helped me run fast times was due to the fact that I had 15 years straight of 2700-3000 miles and that gave me a strong base to quickly peak off of.  On a side not, I am still struggling with my Hypothyroidism. They found that I have Hashimoto's  disease and it needs to run its course. The doctor is still playing with my dosage trying to find the correct level of the hormone. Most symptoms are gone so it is improving and I will be back running soon(I hope)  Also, I am not trying to argue, just pointing out that goals can reached taking many paths and someone running 50-60 a week is just as much a marathoner as one who runs double that or more.  I hope I am not offending anyone. If so I apologize.

[Ryan]

Shoot, I had a long post typed up and my PC crashed...hopefully I don't butcher what I was trying to say as I attempt this again. The second time I type up a post, between feeling more rushed and trying to match what I typed the previous time, it always comes out worse.

First, I hope I'm safe in saying I don't think anyone is taking offense to what you're saying. We're all here to share experiences and lessons learned as we try to learn something new. While we may have differences of opinion based on our differing experiences, exploring those differences of opinion is how we learn something new.

As for your training, it has obviously worked well for you but, honestly, outside of yearly consistency, it's not what has worked for me. Or at least it's not what has worked best for me. When I was running my best was when I was reeling off 4000-5000 mile years. I accomplished a lot, compared to where I was when I started, at 3000 miles per year but there was just no comparison between that and the higher volumes. I'm now back to more in the 3000-3500 range and, even when upping the intensity and trying to do other things to maintain, I'm not anywhere near where I once was. Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with where I'm at now but it's not where I made it with more training.

I guess I just also see some level of consistency from week to week and month to month as being as important as consistency from year to year. If someone is going out and running 80-100 mpw for 3 months and logging less than 2500 miles in a year, as I've seen, they are getting half of their volume in a 3 month period and the other half is spread very thinly over 9 months. I couldn't imagine trying to accomplish either short term or long term racing goals on such inconsistent training. I'd just get nowhere on that kind of schedule.

I'm not sure what you mean by embellishing workouts and I've been rounding down since my high school days when I grew up in a running culture where I thought everyone rounded down (imagine my surprise when I went online and found out people rounded up or tracked their training to the hundreth of a mile). Depending on what you mean by embellishing workouts, I don't think this is about these issues. For me, it's about averaging 50 miles per week and not having a prayer at a 3:00 marathon or running 70-80 miles per week and being a 2:50 marathoner (or doing more and being a 2:40 marathoner, etc).

I wish you the best with your health issues. Hopefully, you will be back getting in that consistent training and those fast race times soon.

[runner1]

I think we both agree that consistency is the key to being successful no matter what level you race at. I think I took the approach of high quality vs high quantity. Who knows maybe I choose the wrong path. In my 20's almost every run was close to six minute pace. Even my twenty milers were under two hours( on a five mile loop measured with a wheel run four times) I am in awe of you guys that run over 4,000 miles a year. I would breakdown and either get injured or burnout when I tried to run that much. I have no regrets on what I did or how I trained. I just went out and ran how I felt every day. Some days I would end up on the track and end up doing eight to ten miles at 5:20 pace or faster, because I felt good. I really did not follow a "plan" for a long time. When I did, I think I improved three minutes, but I do not know if I enjoyed it as much. For me, at the end of the day, that is what matters most. I also had a twelve year stretch without a single month being below 200 miles which supports your thought on consistency. Most of those months were in the 240-260 range. I tried to average eight a day for the year and was usually close every year. I remember getting over 400 for one month once (actually 405) and thinking that was a lot. Hearing what you did (or do) I feel like a little leaguer.

[Ryan]

Consistency is everything. This is what I was trying to get at, in a clumsy way, with my first post. I wasn't trying to dwell on overall volume, just trying to point out how some people who think they are getting in great training are only doing so for short periods of time while spending long periods of time doing very little. This isn't the path to success.

It sounds like we just had different strengths and approaches. I actually have attempted the type of training you describe and I was the one who ended up burned out. I believe it was 2006 when I attempted the low volume/high intensity approach and I had my worst all around racing year in a long time. My body just responds to volume more than it does to intensity.

As for who's the little leaguer, this is all just training. It's a means to an end and the end is racing performances. Your performances speak for themselves.

Whose training philosophy was better? Well, we can't go back in time and try different things so we'll never know. I know I went from the slowest, least athletic guy in my school (everyone in the school, not just the athletes) and in the conference to someone who has been able to put up at least respectable times. My training has taken me a long way. Obviously, yours has also taken you far. We both found what we enjoyed doing and hopefully what leaves us looking back satisfied with how far we have come. It's enlightening and fun to hear these different paths to success so I hope nobody takes any of these comments the wrong way. One thing I'm most definitely taking from this is that, no matter what your path to the top, it always seems to include consistency.

[Double]

Ryan is in a league of his own.  I haven't topped 3,000 since the Carter Administration.

My original point was to say, why do people ramp up in the 4-8 weeks before the marathon (running a fair bit more than they normally do).  Why not ramp up, then get into a bit more specific running needed for racing a marathon.  I was being general and was aiming at the crowd who gets really motivated and tries to pack the whole deal in over 3-4 months.  Like runner1, I ran what I felt I could handle (needed) specifically for racing a marathon.  I did not do tons of mileage then or many long runs, but some of the hard workouts were 15-20 miles.  Since I turned 40 over 8 years ago I think I got over 2,800 once.  I generally had to or needed a month of bairly running twice a year to recover.  Once after ultra season in the spring and once after marathon season in the fall.  Not always by choice.  Also agree that having been a runner most of my life (with a very lean decade or so thrown in) has had huge benefits.  I thought nothing of getting back to 50 a week, where newer runners can struggle with that number.  Heck, 50-60 a week is an effort for me now.