05.02.08
I don’t really get the marathon
So I really obsessed about my running long long before Workout Log made our job easier. I thought I would go back to my old spreadsheets and update them post Boston, to see what the numbers can tell me. Here is my mileage chart since I returned from my 2-year stint with the Peace Corps in 2004. The red dots correspond to when I ran marathon races.
Below are the averages for the 15-week span leading up to each of those four marathons, and the times I ran:
Chicago I (53.1; 2:27:43)
Chicago II (57.3; 2:20:33)
New York Olympic Trials (74.3; 2:31:30)
Boston (65.4; 2:20:57)
What does this tell me? The answer is not much. I significantly increased my work load prior to the Trials, and then ran poorly. It’s also true, however, that I really went after it in that race. A more conservative approach probably would have landed me somewhere near 2:20 or just under it. I think my Boston performance is probably the best of the 4, considering I was sick going into it.
What do others think? By the way, that’s a hint to comment.
Related Posts:
Brent said,
May 2, 2008 at 1:50 pm
the low volume is striking. maybe it tells us that you are uniquely made to run long distances. many, if not most, observers would comment that you are performing far below your potential by running so few miles. i might agree with that to some extent, but i also think that the way you do your miles emphasizes quality over quantity (and most of your weeks are six day weeks, not seven), and you would assuredly have to slow down some of your runs to up your mileage significantly. what effect would that have? it is hard to tell. i don’t think you can overstate the benefit of being strong, small, and light for the marathon. and that benefit compounds itself with every mile raced. ultimately, it is amazing that you have achieved such success on your low volume training regimen…perhaps high quality is the most important training characteristic. but you are just a trial with an N=1 and most athletes would not achieve your success with such low volume. i don’t think i would.
Joan said,
May 2, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Don’t you also think the years leading up to 2007-2008 have a lot to do with the equation? If Marc’s N (being low mileage/high intensity) were tried on a new runner, with no prior history of training, there’s no way you’d see a sub 2:30 marathon. A friend of mine - former UNC XC man, George Nicholas - once explained the 10-year rule. He said anyone who has been a runner for 10 years, with relatively unbroken training, will have a breakthrough no matter what training philosophy he or she adheres to. He said you have to try hard NOT to PR after 10 years of racing. I have also heard that growth occurs in 7-year increments. Marc, might your astonishing race results on such “low mileage” be the natural result of 10 straight years of serious running? High school, college, post-collegiate, BAM!
Marc said,
May 2, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Perhaps, except that it hasn’t been totally unbroken. My 2.5 years of Peace Corps (late 2001-early 2004 with about 2-3 runs a week) was a mini hiatus after 3.5 years of college running. In high school, I did not run seriously (I played soccer and ran track races on about 15-20 miles a week).
Joan said,
May 2, 2008 at 4:02 pm
so that blows my theory!
any others?
Marc said,
May 5, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Does anyone know of a sub 2:15 marathoner who averages less than 70 miles per week? I’d like to know if that’s ever been done.
Victor said,
May 5, 2008 at 9:19 pm
ooo…Hey Marc. Thanks so much for posting your mileage for you marathon trainning. As an aspiring marathoner that really helps me. I’m still trying to figure our my personal formula to prepare for it. I’m looking forward to long tempos this summer. I’m super excited.
Go Brent and Marc…our Marathon BALLERS!! I’m hoping to join that group soon…
Diana said,
May 6, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I may not be right, but I think I’m in the camp of being someone who does better on higher intensity and lower volume. On the other hand, maybe I just never did high mileage right. I have limited knowledge and experience with this, but I would guess, Marc, that if you decided to increased your mileage load you’d have to significantly change how you were training to allow your body to adapt to it and make it worth your while. If you continue with the same intensity and higher mileage, that sounds to me like an injury waiting to happen. Then again, I’m just a mid-distance girl turned 5K-er.
Sciandra said,
May 8, 2008 at 2:19 pm
mj,
being one who both obsesses over my log and loves to play with numbers, i must admit that i find myself fascinated by such discussions. one issue that occurred to me was what the effect of mono was on your training leading up to the race (you gotta stop making out with random girls, by the way). let’s say you threw out the weeks when you were sick and presumably not running much (or not running as much as you wanted to be) in your boston lead-up and compared only the full-bore training weeks of that period to the same weeks pre-trials. are the results more similar?
another thought is that the 15-week period, while it represents a lot of training, may not be long enough comparison period for a distance that one races as infrequently as the marathon. plus, as joan articulated via her 10-year argument, all running is cumulative, and i think that’s particularly true for the marathon.
in “once a runner” parker’s character bruce denton describes to his protege quenton cassidy his theory on how training cycles work, and i think it’s very relevant to this discussion: “people conceptualize conditioning in different ways…some think it’s a ladder straight up. others see plateaus, blockages, ceilings, etc. i see it as a geometric spiraling upwards, with each spin of the circle taking a different distance upwards. some spins make even take you DOWNWARDS, just gathering momentum for the next upswing. sometimes you will work your fanny off and see very little gain; other times you will amaze yourself and not really know why.”