Training Philosophy 4: Credo

I came up with my own training philosophy, which I freely admit I've rarely followed, after repeatedly failing in my attempts to run a marathon in 2:30. I ran 10K in 32 minutes and was regularly beating guys who had broken 2:30, so I figured I just needed to train as they did; their training universally had more mileage and longer long runs. So, I'd run long frequently, get in as many miles as I could and continued the 10K races as speedwork (I enjoyed them and I was good at it), though my times slowed into the mid 33's, which didn't alarm me, as I was training for a marathon and not a 10K. Each time I tried the marathon, however, I ended up running closer to 2:45 after "blowing up" somewhere on the course.

If I ran 2:45 when I trained to run 2:30, what did I need to do to run 2:30? Train to run 2:15???

Years later, it dawned on me that I shouldn't have thought of myself as a 2:30 marathoner who had a bad day and finished slow. Instead, I was a 2:45 marathoner who overtrained and went out too fast. The answer was to train better to run what I already could do. If I trained to run 2:45 and paced myself, it was likely I'd have energy left toward the end to speed up and run a personal best. [I'm aware of the irony that I denigrated negative splits in an earlier post in this series. So I contradict myself. It's a different mind-set.] There are some "natural" points at which one can decide whether one should increase speed; they come at 3 hours, 75 minutes and 10 minutes from the end of the race (which of course requires one to be able to predict a finish time); for a 5 hour marathoner, that first decision point at 3 hours comes at the same point on the course as the 75 minute point for a world-class runner.

There's a sort of Catch-22 inherent in this method: you have to race before you race. What if you've never run a marathon or it's been a long time since your last race? You can race right now, if only a 5K (assuming you're healthy, you can always finish a 5K, though it might not be pretty); if there's no race available, as is often the case here in Minnesota in the winter, measure out your own course - it'll be accurate enough.

The next "rule" is that one can race well over a 2-fold range of distances, and at least finish over a 4-fold range. Thus, if one races a 5k, one then trains to do that 5K, but at the end of the training cycle, instead of another 5K, one could run a 10K. One would then train to run 10K and race a 1/2 marathon (admittedly just out of range, but 20K races are rare). Then one trains to run a 1/2 marathon and races a marathon. Finally, one trains to race the marathon. This method is very slow, but it allows one to build mileage slowly as well.

The amount of time between races should be adequate for recovery. One should never race more than 10% of one's miles and 5% over the course of a year is preferred. For every mile of a race, one should have a day before the next race, preferably two. These two rules become the same at 70 miles per week.

I believe that there's a point where mileage becomes counter-productive. I've covered it before, but I've found that at 5K, ideally one averages 50 minutes per day, with long runs of 90 minutes; at 10K, it's 60 and 120; at 1/2 marathon 65-70 and 135-150; at marathon 75 and 2:45; at 50 miles 80 and 3:15; at 100 miles it's 100 and 4:15. For difficult trail races, one adds 5 and 15 minutes to these (for very hard races, like the Hardrock 100: add 10 and 30).

Training for any race consists of four components (repeating myself), most easily described as 1) how far you can run, 2) how far you can run at a given pace, 3) how fast you can run a given distance and 4) how fast you can run. Each of these should be included in any training schedule, but, of course, the emphasis shifts depending upon the length of the race.

My preferred method of peaking is to start with alternating short fast runs with long runs, then switch to alternating short easy runs with long runs that have speedwork at the beginning, then switch to alternating short easy runs with long runs that have speedwork at the end.

Eventually, one reaches a plateau in performance. At that point, one can try training more than once per day, but the second session should be an exercise other than running. For trail runners, hiking and biking (especially mountain biking, as it requires shifting balance and rapid changes in speed and direction) are probably best; speed-walking is also an excellent choice, especially for multi-day athletes.

Training Philosophy 3: Peaking

With high mileage, one races regularly, year-round. With low mileage, one races frequently when one feels like racing. With peaking strategies, one picks one future race as a goal. Peaking has become ingrained in athletics; in high school one peaks for the state championship, then in college for the national championship, after that one peaks for the world championships and Olympics. If one does well there, one then writes training programs for others to follow to match that success.

While there are dozens (if not hundreds) of training schedules available to help you "Run Your Best Race," they are all based on the very simple idea that the faster you run, the less you can run. They try to take advantage of both the high mileage and low mileage methods by switching from one to the other.

The standard peaking method begins with a base period of long easy runs. Then one incorporates fast continuous runs, often about a third of one's race distance done at race pace, but decreases mileage. Then one adds interval sessions to build speed and decreases mileage again. Finally, one decreases mileage once more as a taper for the race itself. It's not a bad system, but it has some flaws which I'll try to explain through my own struggles.

One starts with a lot of endurance running, which can lead to overuse injuries. One later runs a lot of speedwork, which can also lead to overuse injuries. One makes sudden transitions from one type of training to another, which can also lead to injuries. I've been injured all three ways.

If one sends too much time in each phase, one loses the benefits of the early ones. I ran 80 miles per week, then got to running 40 miles per week of speedwork, only to find I no longer had the endurance of 80 mpw, but of 40.

The standard peaking procedure works well if training for distances up to 10K, but not as well for marathons, as one goes from longer endurance runs to shorter speed runs. If I tried to keep my stamina by regular long runs through the speed phase, I found I was in shape to run 1)long and slow and 2) short and fast, but not long and fast.

An alternative peaking strategy for the marathon is to start with long endurance runs, then add some short sprints. One then increases the length of the interval sessions, while cutting down the speed. One ends up running as far as possible at race pace in continuous runs. I tried this, training for a 2:50 marathon, with three 1/2-marathons 7,5&3 weeks before the marathon, which I planned to run at marathon pace. I ran the races in 1:22-1:25 and felt secure in my ability. I ran the first half of the marathon a little fast and hit the half-way mark in 1:20; I was dead on my feet only a few miles later. In retrospect, I had trained myself to run a half-marathon in about 1:20 and to be able to do it at any time, but hadn't trained well for the marathon. I might have been able to run the marathon in 3:00, had I run the first half in 1:30, but ended up finishing walking in at (I think) 3:16.

I ended up having years of mediocre marathons and believing I just wasn't cut out to do them.

Next up: my own method

Training Philosophy 2: Low Mileage

There's a law of diminishing returns in running; each mile brings less benefit than the one before it. Similarly, running every day is not appreciatively better than running 6 days per week and running twice a day brings almost no added benefit. If running high mileage is a form of insurance, then low mileage is efficient but gambling.

In the 1920's Glenn Cunningham ran a 4:04 mile on 15-20 miles per week. Any high school coach can tell you that it's possible to get good results from runners who do almost nothing (and yes I was one of them). The more talent you have, the less training you need to reach any goal; you might have to train extremely hard to run a 6 minute mile - if you could do one at all - but most men on college track teams could take a year off and run one that fast on almost no training.

The rules for low mileage training are simple: Run hard when you do run (but not too hard), at least twice a week, preferably three or four times per week. Run hills frequently. Run long once per week (but not too long). When you feel good, race frequently; a 5K every weekend works well. When you feel bad, back off and don't run fast or long and don't run hills for a while. Train as specifically as possible.

Beware the testimonials

It's not hard to find people who claim to have run good marathons and ulramarathons on low mileage, but you have to look closely at their training to see how they do it. One man claims to run 100 milers on 15 miles per week, but if you think about it, if you ran nothing for 7 weeks and then ran 100 miles you'd be averaging 15 miles per week, so he's not counting his races and he actually runs 45-50 per week. Others do a lot of other aerobic (and anaerobic) exercise besides running and they're not mentioning the cross-training. A third common claim is "I used to run 70-100 miles per week and now I'm running even faster on only 20 miles per week;" the endurance they gained from the higher mileage takes a while to be lost and now they're rested - check to see how they do in 2-3 years.

Jack Foster

Jack was the first of the new breed of run-less runners. He was a world-class cyclist who retired at age 33 and took up running; he ran a 2:11 marathon at age 41 and 2:20 at age 50. His training is usually described as "three days running per week with some biking on the weekend." His typical week actually was 20 miles in two hours one day, 15 miles in 90 minutes on two other days, one of which included 9-12 times 1000m at race pace with 600m recoveries (3 minutes on, 3 off; still averaging 6 minute miles) and his biking was a century done in 3-4 hours. The 2:11 was done on 70-80 miles per week, before he switched to the other schedule.

Cross-training

Foster's cycling leads to cross-training. Many runners find that running every day leads to injury or burnout, but that they can do a roughly equivalent workout using some other aerobic activity. Yiannis Kouros is secretive about his training, but reportedly does a lot of rowing. Geoff Roes, who has been nearly unbeatable in ultras recently, does a lot of biking and hiking in addition to his running. The idea is to strain the circulatory system, but use different muscles or use them differently, decreasing the repetitive stress.

The Tabata Fad

The current obsession with low-mileage comes from an experiment that showed increases in "anaerobic capacity" (at best a nebulous idea) doing 8 repetitions of 20 seconds of all-out effort followed by 10 seconds of rest were better than increases done by steady exercise. There are a great many flaws to the study and people are stretching the results to match whatever they're promoting; people will buy into anything that says they can do less and get more.

[I fully expect to get a bunch of angry responses to that. So, in advance: screw you, too.]

Why 20 seconds? Because one uses a creatine phosphate/ATP shuttle for energy for a few seconds, but only world-class sprinters can use that for more than 15 seconds, so there's a small oxygen-deficit measurable in ADP concentrations. Why 10 seconds? because it's an artifact of earlier studies of oxygen uptake that used a 2:1 work:rest ratio, which makes sense energetically when dealing with minutes and not seconds. Why 8 repetitions? because 8x20 or 160 seconds is about as long as most people can stand "lactic acid build-up" - another misnomer.

The study's actual finding was: training anaerobically helps one train better anaerobically.

Ultras on low mileage

It's possible, especially if you're already in good shape. The current Crossfit craze has one thing going for it: for experienced ultrarunners, the limiting factor tends to be muscular fatigue. Crossfit does a good job of stressing the smaller muscles usually used for balance and posture (as do yoga and pilates, though in a completely different way) and these are the ones that tend to fail. Standard running training don't stress these muscles much, but hills and fast trail runs do. I prefer to run; it's more specific to running.

Next up: peaking strategies

Training Philosophy 1: High Mileage

High mileage has worked very well for some runners. It was the way that Dave Bedford set the world record at 10K, how Derek Clayton became the first to break 2:12 in the marathon (and 2:11, 2:10 and 2:09) and how Ron Daws made the US Olympic team in the marathon. The idea in the 1960's was that everyone had about the same amount of talent, so the one who trained hardest should win. The ultimate in this was Gerry Lindgren's "Dare to Be Great" program of 350 miles per week. The method fell out of favor in the 1970's, when the first running boom occurred and more talented runners took over distance running.

Clayton and Daws are good examples of the type of runner for whom the method works. Clayton had a VO2 max of 69.7 (compare Prefontaine's 84.4), typical of most 2:24 marathoners, but he was able to run 5 minute miles for 90 minutes without effort because he trained to do just that, running 8000 miles per year at his peak, entirely under 6 minutes per mile. Daws had a maximum heart rate of 187 (compare Prefontaine's 214), but he could run at 180 bpm for 2.5 hours, because he trained to do it.

Currently, high mileage is seen mostly among some top Japanese marathoners and among ultrarunners (both good and average). There's what I call the 130 group: run 130 miles per week, 130 minutes per day and finish a marathon in 130 minutes (2:10); it's a convenient 5 marathons per week at 6 minutes per mile. To do this, one has to be extremely talented, extremely diligent, willing to train hard every day for 15 years to have one or two great races and have no biomechanical flaws that lead to injury. Training long every day causes one to be efficient at running long at training pace, but doesn't mean one can race any faster; to compensate for this, they race a marathon once a month, or about 5% of their mileage. There's no training more specific than racing.

Among ultrarunners, running long every day also works for those who plan to do races often, but don't actually push themselves all-out in many races. There are enough low-key ultras that some runners can enter races knowing they'll finish hours ahead of their competition (especially true among women); if they can run 24 hours and win, why try to run 20? Their races become their speedwork.

The alternative for high volume is to run more than once per day. I've never been a fan of two-a-days, but have to admit that the more miles one runs, the more frequently one can race. It does make sense once one is running races considerably longer than 12 hours in length; one's going to be racing both morning and night so one should get the feel for it. I got to see how Mike Henze trained to run 147.4 miles at FANS; it was rather disappointing - he followed Jack Daniels' marathon training plan A to the letter, adding a second run each day to up the mileage to 130 per week and did 5 ultra-length training runs spaced about 5 weeks apart. I've heard one 24-hour specialist say that one can expect to run as many miles in the race as the most miles one ran in a week of training (I hate to admit this holds true for my poor performances).

Almost no one has the time to train this way and most who try end up getting overuse injuries. One way that these injuries get minimized is by doing cross-training for the second workout, rather than running more miles that tend to be "junk" miles. Cross-training will get covered in the next post in the series: low mileage.