marathon training by running only twice/week
Karl Pfleger
marathon (hopefully Boston'96 if I get into the Jan.10 lottery), and my
training strategy so far has been to only run twice per week, and to simply
keep turning up the mileage. Does anyone think this is dumb?
Long version:
Conventional marathon training scheduled that I've heard about all involve
running 5-6 times per week, but this seems absurd to me because it doesn't
provide enough rest time between runs. Every piece of fitness, health, or
medical literature or publication that I've ever seen (except for marathon
training stuff) stresses that muscles need a minimum of 48 hours to recover
from tough workouts. Even the running FAQ recognizes this in its excerpt from
"The Running Book" by the Editors of Consumer Guide:
Experts in physical fitness tend to agree that running days should
alternate with days of rest, since rest for the body is as much a
part of developing fitness as exercise.
Even if you only do hard workouts every other day, the light workouts are
still preventing the full rest and recovery needed to prevent overtraining.
At least, the full rest day is necessary if you pushed yourself hard enough
on the training days. Certainly, if you are training well below your limit
and not pushing yourself, you can do anything every day, but the point is to
push your limits enough to need lots of rest. Everything I've read supports
this.
For instance, take the Health For Life literature. All of their stuff
recommends adequate recovery time, but in addition, some of their excellent
books contain advice on how to combine different athletic endeavors into
overall exercise schedules. The key point is that people who do more than
one activity stressing the same muscle groups should not split the schedules
and do one of these activities on half of the days and the other on the
other half because then this muscle group doesn't get any recovery time. As
an example, if you do dancing or martial arts with lots of leg muscle
involvement 3 times per week and also want to run 3 times per week, then you
shouldn't do the runs on the between days for the other activity but instead
should do the runs on the same days as the other activity soon after the
other activity. (Source: _Secrets of Advanced Bodybuilders_ by the Health
For Life people.)
So how can anyone justify running more than 3.5 times per week? To all the
people who run 6 times per week: Do you really think your muscles recover
more quickly than the experts say they do? Or do you think that there is
something different about endurance training and all this expert advice I'm
quoting only applies to strength training? (As far as I can tell, it isn't
limited to strength training.) Or do you think that light runs on days
between hard runs don't really tear more muscle fibers and inhibit recovery?
Or do you think that running below your limits on the harder days and then
running more days is just as good as pushing your limits more on the harder
days but requiring more significant rest in between, or at least not that
much worse than it? Perhaps such a scheme simply fits in better to your
weekly schedule, but you would do it the other way if you had a more flexible
schedule?
[Please don't let your ego take this the wrong way. I'm a novice here, in
terms of long-distance running anyway, just seeking advice and
understanding, not trying to claim that my training method is better than
yours or anything silly like that.]
The related question has to do with using total weekly mileage as an
indicator of marathon training status. Total mileage seems to me not to be
nearly as important as how long the longest run you are doing is. How you
split the miles up throughout the week is very important. I'd say that if you
are running two 5-mile runs and a 15-mile run every week, you are in better
shape to run a marathon than someone who runs 6 miles, 6 days/week, even
though the latter person runs 11 miles/week more.
My original reason for only running twice per week is not laziness, but has
to do with the other athletic activities I regularly participate in. I try to
do upper body weight workouts regularly, and also participate in a martial
arts class. There aren't enough days in the week to do them all even 3 times
per week without doubling up, so I've been doing each twice per week. Since
the martial arts class utilizes both upper- and lower-body muscles, but the
runs only lower and workouts only upper-body muscles, each muscle group gets
about 4 workouts per week, but often 3 due to days missed here and there.
So far this training technique has worked quite well. I started out doing two
roughtly 3-mile runs per week (and having that be pretty close to my limit),
and now I am doing one around 7-8 miles and one around 11-12 miles each
week. At the moment, I don't see any reason why I can't continue this way.
In the near future I plan to keep the easier day between 7-9 and simply
increase the long day mileage, possibly alternating every other week between
11-12 and 12+ (increasing every 2 weeks).
Note that for what it is worth, I run very slowly (9-10 minute-mile pace),
but my goal is just to finish this marathon still feeling okay rather than
trying to achieve any particular fast time. My calves are always VERY sore
between runs, but feel a lot better by the time the next running day comes
along. If I tried to run the day after one of my normal runs, however, I fear
it would be very very painful. Pain is not just unpleasant, it is an
indication that something is wrong.
-Karl
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Pfleger kpfl...@cs.stanford.edu http://www.stanford.edu/~kpfleger/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Carminati
Pfleger) wrote:
> Conventional marathon training scheduled that I've heard about all involve
> running 5-6 times per week, but this seems absurd to me because it doesn't
> provide enough rest time between runs. Every piece of fitness, health, or
> medical literature or publication that I've ever seen (except for marathon
> training stuff) stresses that muscles need a minimum of 48 hours to recover
> from tough workouts. [...]
> My original reason for only running twice per week is not laziness, but has
> to do with the other athletic activities I regularly participate in. I try to
> do upper body weight workouts regularly, and also participate in a martial
> arts class. There aren't enough days in the week to do them all even 3 times
> per week without doubling up, so I've been doing each twice per week.[...]
All right, I'll bite. If you want to simply finish a marathon you can
accomplish this training once every 3 weeks. Simply increase the mileage
of this run (say, by 2 miles each time) until you're scheduled for a
26-miler the day of the marathon. Voila!
Now if you want to optimize your performance... I don't think anyone
really knows. "Scientific" studies have been very limited. Your own
argument above supports hard/easy training. The only question is whether
one's body recovers better if the "easy" day is a day off.
I think many every-day runners would improve their performance by
switching to every-other-day running, giving their bodies adequate rest to
run harder on the days they do run. This is what Jeff Galloway has been
advocating in recent years. Do strength training on those "off" days and
you'll probably be in the best shape of your life.
That said, I tend to run 6 days a week (and occasionally twice in the same
day). Why? Number 1: I like it. Number 2: I think I run slowly enough on
my easy days to recover. Am I optimizing my performance? Probably not. To
do so I'd add more weight and forms training, cross train on easy days,
and run higher quality hard days.
--
Tom Carminati
U S WEST Technologies
t...@atqm.advtech.uswest.com
Richard Ottolini
The body gets used to the daily routine of running,
and no other physical acitvity IMHO quite matches its intensity.
So I'd get anxious taking more than a day a week off.
Easy/Easy/Hard sequences are way of reconciling both of these goals.
Ryan Mcbryde
Richard S. Webb
>Short version: I'm currently in the early stages of training for my first
>marathon (hopefully Boston'96 if I get into the Jan.10 lottery), and my
>training strategy so far has been to only run twice per week, and to simply
>keep turning up the mileage. Does anyone think this is dumb?
Presumably with Boston the driving force, everyone seems to be looking
for short cuts to qualifying and running well in marathons. Many of
Karl's points in his longer version have been covered before. The
best marathoners train 100+ miles/week - this doesn't mean we should
or could, but their ability to train long and hard makes them the
best. Given equal ability, the guy doing say 70 miles/week in 5 - 10
sessions/week, including at least 2 hard work-outs will beat the guy
just doing the hard work-outs? Why? Presumaby the answer in part is
that his/her body does recover quicker than most of us, so this level
of training is possible.
IMHO the mistake Karl is making is to equate mileage and runs/week
with high-intensity muscle-damaging runs. While complete rest is
sometimes necessary, recovery can co-exist with short and even long
runs in a high-mileage training program. Let's talk speeds - a
three-hour marathoner is racing at 7 mins/mile. He/she probably can do
sub-6 in a 5K. In training, these speeds should only be reached at
the most on 2 days, and then maybe only as elements of a speed
work-out (say with 5 to 8 x 800m at 5K pace) for all the
recovery-related reasons Karl mentions. A long run (2 - 3 hours?)
should be at 8 - 9 minute miles, shorter runs (1 - 1½ hours) at 7½-8
minute miles. We are trying to train our body to run for 3 hours at 7
minute/miles, a singular effort that will leave us sore and recovering
for a week or more, so we have to break down our training into the
dual abilities to run at 7 minute pace, and to run for 3+ hours, in
such a way that it all comes together for the first time on race day.
I'm sorry, but for most of us to "be the best that we can be", this
means a lot more than just a couple of hard work-outs/week. Fill in
your own numbers - for me I've learned the hard way that reduced body
weight and speed work-outs are essential components (as I've discussed
before here), but the other unavoidable difference between a 2:50
marathon and a 2:40 marathon is the difference between 50 and 70
miles/week beforehand.
Richard Webb <rw...@ravenet.com>
Bob Sarocka
so I'm speaking from more than just my personal experience.
I see a huge correlation between how often and how many total miles people
run and their marathon times and comfort level at the end of the
marathon. More mileage = better time, it's as simple as that, up to some
upper limit. I've had many people who ran a much better marathon one year
than the previous with the only change in their training being total
mileage (same pace, same speedowrk, same distance long runs).
You will not run a great marathon by running twice a week. With the
exception of Matt Mahoney, who does ridiculous amounts of cross-training,
you're just not going to get any testimonials for "less is best".
As far as needing 48 hours of recovery, I think the key statement was 48
hours after a tough run. With a long run on the weekend and speedwork
once during the week, only 2 runs from most people's schedules are
"tough". If you take the day off after these, you're left with 5 days of
running/week.
In article <47p5ut$k...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, kpfl...@hpp.Stanford.EDU (Karl
Pfleger) wrote:
> Short version: I'm currently in the early stages of training for my first
> marathon (hopefully Boston'96 if I get into the Jan.10 lottery), and my
> training strategy so far has been to only run twice per week, and to simply
> keep turning up the mileage. Does anyone think this is dumb?
>
>
>
> -Karl
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Karl Pfleger kpfl...@cs.stanford.edu http://www.stanford.edu/~kpfleger/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Bob Sarocka
Lombard, IL
Eric James Robinson
> Short version: I'm currently in the early stages of training for my first
> marathon (hopefully Boston'96 if I get into the Jan.10 lottery), and my
> training strategy so far has been to only run twice per week, and to simply
> keep turning up the mileage. Does anyone think this is dumb?
A lot of people will tell you might finish a marathon this way,
but you probably won't get your best performance. I'd say try
it and see if it works for you.
In the past seven months I've run a grand total of 35 times.
Six of those were races. At four of these races, I set seven
different pr's at five different distances.
50k pr'd twice
50M pr'd twice
100k pr'd once
100M pr'd once
24H pr'd once
I'll admit that I haven't come very close to my marathon pr,
but then I have been training for much longer distances. My
training runs are normally anywhere between 20 and 40 miles.
It normally takes me about a week to completely recover from
one of these runs, which is why I don't run more often. I
find that if I wait until complete recovery for the next run,
the only way I am likely to get injured is tearing ankle
ligaments, getting a tree branch in the face, or slicing
open a thumb on a rock (these all happened to me during
races).
Eric James Robinson
> Short version: I'm currently in the early stages of training for my first
> marathon (hopefully Boston'96 if I get into the Jan.10 lottery), and my
> training strategy so far has been to only run twice per week, and to simply
> keep turning up the mileage. Does anyone think this is dumb?
A lot of people will tell you might finish a marathon this way,
Eric James Robinson
> so I'm speaking from more than just my personal experience.
>
> I see a huge correlation between how often and how many total miles people
> run and their marathon times and comfort level at the end of the
> marathon. More mileage = better time, it's as simple as that, up to some
> upper limit.
I personally question whether short easy runs convey any
significant training benefit at all. Aerobic fitness is
supposed to be achieved with only three thirty minute runs
per week. If one of those is a long run, and one is a speed
session, exactly what is accomplished by doing easy runs on
any of the other four days of the week?
I'd say there might possibly be a health or psychological
benefit, but the training benefit is probably very small.
> I've had many people who ran a much better marathon one year
> than the previous with the only change in their training being total
> mileage (same pace, same speedowrk, same distance long runs).
It seems to me that this does not prove that more mileage is
better, but rather that more experience at the marathon distance
is better. Do you have many examples of people who ran a good
marathon one year, and then did significantly better/worse the
next year using the same training minus the junk mileage?
In other words you are missing a control group. You are
comparing people to themselves, when you need to compare
groups of people to other groups of people. (By the way,
the group I mentioned above would not make a very good
control group, although I think it would be an interesting
group to look at).
> You will not run a great marathon by running twice a week. With the
> exception of Matt Mahoney, who does ridiculous amounts of cross-training,
> you're just not going to get any testimonials for "less is best".
I guess I'm another exception. I'll stick to my training
method of running once per week, as long as it continues to
produce pr's. I have recorded seven in the past seven months,
although I should stress that none of these have been marathons.
By the way, the only "cross-training" I do is to walk 2.5 miles
about three times per week at about 4 mph.
> As far as needing 48 hours of recovery, I think the key statement was 48
> hours after a tough run. With a long run on the weekend and speedwork
> once during the week, only 2 runs from most people's schedules are
> "tough". If you take the day off after these, you're left with 5 days of
> running/week.
I'm not sure that anyone knows how much "easy" days are damaging
your tissues and/or preventing your tissues from recovering. My
experience would seem to indicate that eliminating easy days can
dramatically reduce your chances of injury. I have made several
attempts to start running again in the past five years, and
succeeded in avoiding training injuries only when I stopped
trying to run 3+ times per week.
As for the figure of 48 hours, I think it depends on who you
are and what you are doing. For most of my training runs, I
need about five to seven days to recover completely.
PGSPersEng
(my first marathon, ran last month at age 44, did a 4:29:25) I didn't have
time to log extensive mileage. I was "comforted" by a report that appeared
in "FitNews" (American Running and Fitness Assoc, June 95 issue, pg 2)
titled, "First Marathons on Less Training." The executive summary is that
the *crucial* factor is getting in those long runs. It also states,
"...this study suggests that as long as you put in a regular long run,
there is no advantage in running extra days to put in higher weekly
milage. In fact, plenty os studies show that you're more likely to get
injured...Since there is no performance advantage in running six days a
week at moderate pace, why take the extra risk?" And in my case, why burn
up all the extra time that I didn't have.
I ran three times a week at 6.2 miles, put in a long run each weekend and
finished *quite* comfortaby. In fact, at 20 miles I had extra energy and
did the last 10k at a faster pace than the first 20 miles.
For what it's worth.
Paul PGSPe...@aol.com
Geoff Foster
>kpfl...@hpp.Stanford.EDU (Karl Pfleger) wrote:
>My guess is that marathon training works best with more frequent
>workouts and less rest than required for weight training because
>it is primarily an aerobic enhancing activity rather than a muscle
>building activity. Evidently, our aerobic systems (capillaries,
>enzymes, etc.) require regular and frequent stimulation to maintain
>a high level of function. Long rest intervals between training days
>would result in the loss of much of the aerobic gain from the last
>workout.
I dont think so. You break down alot of muscle fibre training to run a marathon. You
need the rest to allow yourself time to recouperate. This is balanced by the fact
that the less you weigh, the faster you will run one. Theres a fine balance to
overtraining. I'd recomend building up to around 80ks per week over about a 3month
interval. Don't run a marathon unless you've done at least 6 months training, or
you'll never ever want to do one again. Your going to find it very hard to get in
80 kms with just 2 runs per week, so go for 4 runs. Say one big one per week, 20-30kms,
a couple of 10ks, and one run of up to 20ks. Make sure you get the rest days in as
you'll need them, especially after a big one. Remember ease into it slowly, or you'll
breakdown.
geoff