Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan
Quote | Reply
I'm wondering if anyone has advice on this...

I'm looking at doing a 16 week low volume Boston qualify marathon plan. Specifically I will be following Runner's World "Run Less Run Faster" plan. The cross training will be swimming and biking. My marathon is in April. Then about 16 weeks later, I want to race in IMWI.

I did the same races last year, and it was OK. But I didn't "train" specifically to BQ. Instead, I just ran the marathon with the fitness I had from IM training.

Has anyone ever done this, or is there any advice I should consider with these 2 "A" races?
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [tobrien] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What's your marathon PR and how close are you to a BQ?

Those run less, run further plans assumes a lot of things ... like you having a long history of running. I can BQ quite easily on 1/2 the volume that I normally run when I try to PR a marathon, but that volume doesn't mean anything unless you check out my run history :)


__________________________________________________________________________
My marathon PR is "under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something."
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [zoom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Oh no. So you're implying that the marathon plan might not even get me the bq? That would be too bad.

I need to lose 20 min from my marathon PR.
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [tobrien] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I can't imagine trying to drop my marathon PR by 20 mins using a "low volume" plan without a long and deep history of running. Good luck and report back on how it goes.
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [tobrien] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't think the RLRF (or FIRST) plan assumes that you have a deep base of running. Pretty sure they even have a first-time marathoner plan (at least they did when they were FIRST). What it does assume is that you're keeping up with cross-training or easy running on the non-key run days.

You can PR with a plan like this, but I would do more easy running than cross-training on the non-run days. The one thing I think that is missing from the RLRF marathon plan is the supplemental long run (or mid-week MLR). If you've done these two races before and focused on the IM last time, I would think that you could dabble in swim/bike while putting in a larger marathon build (more volume) and then switch focus back to triathlon after the marathon. IMO that would give you the best opportunity to BQ and still put together a solid IM.
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [tobrien] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Has anyone ever done this, or is there any advice I should consider with these 2 "A" races?


What's the priority here?

Since this is a triathlon forum I assume that triathlon takes priority.

Best to set aside any marathon race, and certainly a chase to get a BQ, for a whole other time. Doing a marathon in the calendar year of a goal IM race, and certainly in that critical last 4 - 6 months is not helpful and indeed, may be detrimental to the IM effort.

It's not that people don't do this - many do and there will be some who chime in here and say "do both". It's just not optimal from the IM performance stand-point.

There is always confusion with this, but a stand-alone marathon best effort, and an IM marathon run have very little in common other than both being the same distance!


Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [tobrien] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If any of the following describes your situation:
  • You are very prone to injury
  • You are not really concerned with your running performance
  • You are far more concerned with your IM than your marathon
  • You have never done any significant volume or this is your first marathon
then by all means run "less". Keep running volume low.

Absent that, reverse it. If you want to run your best marathon, keeping running volume low is the last thing -- the VERY last thing -- you want to do. The marathon is an endurance game. A volume game. More is more. "Run less run faster" is bull. It is marketing, targeted at the natural human desire to get rewards without work (or who just don't like running
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [JoeO] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I see. In all fairness, there are still five 20 mile runs in the 16 week program "run less" program.

Yes, it is the FIRST system.
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [JoeO] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JoeO wrote:
More is more. "Run less run faster" is bull. It is marketing, targeted at the natural human desire to get rewards without work (or who just don't like running

I struggle with this sentiment because RLRF isn't about running less it's about running quality. The entire premise of the program is that every week you are doing "track" work, tempo work, and a long run. I would bet that if a person did 16 weeks of that vs. 16 weeks of 6 days a week unstructured easy running but lots of miles the RLRF program would yield better results. In fact, your opinion that this plan is for people that don't want to put in the work is absolute BS. If you do the RLRF program honestly based on your most recent race it is hard...way harder than just "going out for a run" 6 days a week.

Now, I may be biased because I have recently started using RLRF but I can tell you that I have already noticed a difference and I will never go back to plodding along when i'm seriously training for something.
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [tobrien] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It isn't about the number of 20 miles runs you put in. It's about the your average weekly volume over an extended amount of weeks/months.


__________________________________________________________________________
My marathon PR is "under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something."
Last edited by: zoom: Dec 2, 16 14:18
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [badgertri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't think Joe was suggesting that you just add a lot of volume, all at "plodding along" pace. While it's true that a lot of the mileage of advanced plans is run at an easy recovery pace, these plans all include key sets to execute every week. The easy running is prescribed to increase your overall volume while still leaving you fresh for hard sessions. Check out Pfitz, Hansons, Daniels or Hudson, which are probably the top-4 marathoning philosophies. They all include key sessions similar to RLRF (usually just 2 of them per week) and there's a lot more total mileage on the advanced plans.

RLRF will have you feeling good in training because there's a lot of time off every week (and a lot of immediate feedback from hitting prescribed paces for short distances). I'm just not sure that it provides the appropriate stress to then create the adaptations necessary for the marathon (unless you supplement with a lot of relatively easy mileage on the rest/cross-training days).

If you want to do your best in the marathon, this is what I would recommend for a typical week during your build. Alternate the tempo / int sessions each week and adjust your schedule accordingly.

M - 6 or rest / cross-training
Tu - 8-10 w/intervals or General Aerobic
W - 12-15 MLR
Th - 6 recovery or 8-10 w/tempo
F - 10-13 MLR or rest / cross-training (if tempo Thurs)
Sa - 6-8 easy
Su - 16-22 LR (w/8-10 @ MP every 3rd week)

Weekly mileage: 58-80
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [badgertri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
badgertri wrote:
JoeO wrote:
More is more. "Run less run faster" is bull. It is marketing, targeted at the natural human desire to get rewards without work (or who just don't like running


I struggle with this sentiment because RLRF isn't about running less it's about running quality. The entire premise of the program is that every week you are doing "track" work, tempo work, and a long run. I would bet that if a person did 16 weeks of that vs. 16 weeks of 6 days a week unstructured easy running but lots of miles the RLRF program would yield better results. In fact, your opinion that this plan is for people that don't want to put in the work is absolute BS. If you do the RLRF program honestly based on your most recent race it is hard...way harder than just "going out for a run" 6 days a week.

Now, I may be biased because I have recently started using RLRF but I can tell you that I have already noticed a difference and I will never go back to plodding along when i'm seriously training for something.


Quite a few straw men in that post.

The marathon is not a "quality over quantity" game. Nor is it the reverse. That is it's a false dichotomy. Whoever told you to "plod"? Whoever said do 16 weeks of "unstructured easy running"? Certainly not me - nor Arthur Lydiard.

Any performance-targeted marathon training program has a lot of structure. Has a decent amount of quality. But it also has a lot of quantity.

Volume does not mean dropping quality. It means letting that quality be a smaller part of a larger volume program.

And yes, it really is harder for most people to do consistent quantity than it is for them to do low-volume quality. Not hard in a "Oh-my-this-workout-is-killing-me" sort of way. Harder in a stick to it way. Getting out there day after day after day proves much more difficult for most people.
Last edited by: JoeO: Dec 2, 16 16:10
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [tobrien] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm not an expert, but I've run enough miles and marathons to know the odds of you dropping a good 20 mins off your marathon PR by running less training miles with some 'runners world' workout plan are horrible. While less miles and more cross training may help your IM effort - at the end of the day running makes you a faster runner, not swimming or biking. While swimming and biking can drive some marginal running improvements, if that time were instead spent actually running (even at recovery pace) you'd see much greater improvements.

As others have stated the top marathon training program (and they work...) all suggest more miles and key quality workouts. If quality workouts were the only key to a program (not mileage) you'd see a lot more sub 3 marathoners putting in only 30 miles a week. But in reality that's not the case. There's normally a reason as the mileage goes up, the times drop. Significantly.

In my opinion to your beginning point though, you can't do well at both. You can run more miles in marathon training, kill it the marathon - but then show at the IM undertrained in the other two disciplines. OR, you can cross train a lot and run much less for mary training but I'd doubt you'd shave 20 mins in order to hit a BQ time.

Disclaimer: If you were running some horribly slow time for the marathon (like 4+ hours) then I'd say you have more a chance -i.e. it's way easier to shave 20 mins from a 5 hour mary than 3 hour one, but since you're indicating you're not far from a BQ time I'll assume you're mid 3's now. 20 min drop isn't going to be a walk in the park.
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [tobrien] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I am going to be running a marathon 14 weeks before IMWI and I've worked with my coaches to come up with a plan to be successful at both. I expect to knock 20 minute (or a little more) off my marathon PR. That said, I still wouldn't qualify for Boston. I think you can definitely do this but only if you already have an excellent running base and are willing to put the mileage in (not just in the long runs but also high mileage throughout the week). You're probably looking at 9 to 10 total workouts with at least 5 of them being running and others being cross training.

After your marathon I would take an entire week off from everything except maybe some swimming and then the 2nd week do half of the "normal' volume you'd do that week for your Ironman training. Week #3 I would go all out. All assuming you have no significant injuries.
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [saebodybuilder] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not like he's giving up on bike, but sounds like biking volume will be filling out the cross training component.

Seems like he's likely to come up short of max potential in both by failing to go all in on either. I'm with you... makes intuitive sense.

But if he goes all in on the run and gets fit enough to bq, you don't think 16 weeks is enough to get his bike legs back? What would the performance delta be and where do you think would it refer in his results... worse bike? worse run? vs if he spent the next 10 months on dedicated IM training?
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [JoeO] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JoeO wrote:
badgertri wrote:
JoeO wrote:
More is more. "Run less run faster" is bull. It is marketing, targeted at the natural human desire to get rewards without work (or who just don't like running


I struggle with this sentiment because RLRF isn't about running less it's about running quality. The entire premise of the program is that every week you are doing "track" work, tempo work, and a long run. I would bet that if a person did 16 weeks of that vs. 16 weeks of 6 days a week unstructured easy running but lots of miles the RLRF program would yield better results. In fact, your opinion that this plan is for people that don't want to put in the work is absolute BS. If you do the RLRF program honestly based on your most recent race it is hard...way harder than just "going out for a run" 6 days a week.

Now, I may be biased because I have recently started using RLRF but I can tell you that I have already noticed a difference and I will never go back to plodding along when i'm seriously training for something.


Quite a few straw men in that post.

The marathon is not a "quality over quantity" game. Nor is it the reverse. That is it's a false dichotomy. Whoever told you to "plod"? Whoever said do 16 weeks of "unstructured easy running"? Certainly not me - nor Arthur Lydiard.

Any performance-targeted marathon training program has a lot of structure. Has a decent amount of quality. But it also has a lot of quantity.

Volume does not mean dropping quality. It means letting that quality be a smaller part of a larger volume program.

And yes, it really is harder for most people to do consistent quantity than it is for them to do low-volume quality. Not hard in a "Oh-my-this-workout-is-killing-me" sort of way. Harder in a stick to it way. Getting out there day after day after day proves much more difficult for most people.

One of my best friends did just this, just this year. 45 yo male no significant running history what so ever other than recreational fitness over the last few years. Ran his first marathon (2nd ever race) in April at 4:03 BQed in Sept with 3:22 then backed it up in Nov with 3:11 which now gets him early registration for Boston. He only runs 3 days a week and maybe 25 mpw. He does one track interval workout one hill repeat and one long run in which he pushes pace. Lifts weights and rides spin bike the other days of the week. He was just as fat and slow as me 6 months ago and I have been at this a lot longer than him! To make it even more interesting he is doing all this on a mostly ketogenic diet, but that's a whole other topic and thread!!

I have tried many times to run 5-6 days consistently and can never seem to be able to do it and when I do I can not seem to get any quality running in. I think I would not only feel better but also get higher quality workouts with 3-4 quality runs in a week than 5-6 runs when most of the time I am tired and slow. IDK, my buddy is really making me re-think the process including my diet.

To the OP, I am also doing the same I am signed up for an April Marathon and possibly looking to do a late fall IM with my friend I mentioned above,(who still needs to learn how to swim). I am not a really good runner and even worse at swimming but seem to be able to bike well. I would like to get my run performance more in line with my biking ability for next year and be at least somewhat fast in a HIM so I am trying to focus on running this winter.
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [mlyonsdc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mlyonsdc wrote:
One of my best friends did just this, just this year. 45 yo male no significant running history what so ever other than recreational fitness over the last few years. Ran his first marathon (2nd ever race) in April at 4:03 BQed in Sept with 3:22 then backed it up in Nov with 3:11 which now gets him early registration for Boston. He only runs 3 days a week and maybe 25 mpw. He does one track interval workout one hill repeat and one long run in which he pushes pace. Lifts weights and rides spin bike the other days of the week. He was just as fat and slow as me 6 months ago and I have been at this a lot longer than him! To make it even more interesting he is doing all this on a mostly ketogenic diet, but that's a whole other topic and thread!!

There are are a surprising number of people who can run BQ marathon on low volume. Particularly if they drop a lot of weight. The point isn't that one can't run well on low volume. It's just that its' not the first way to go when performance becomes your concern.

(In other words, "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.")

Quote:
I have tried many times to run 5-6 days consistently and can never seem to be able to do it and when I do I can not seem to get any quality running in. I think I would not only feel better but also get higher quality workouts with 3-4 quality runs in a week than 5-6 runs when most of the time I am tired and slow. IDK, my buddy is really making me re-think the process including my diet.

If 5 to 6 days a week of consistent easy running is making you feel worn down something is wrong. It could be any number of things but the most common is this I see this story all the time:

Runner X does 3 days per week at... let's say 7 minutes per mile for a few months with some consistency. Usually he's new to the sport but sometimes he's someone who is just new to that sort of consistency over months. Eventually his race results show improvement. He gets excited at the improvement. I suggest he aim for some volume. I tell him to take the extra mileage easy.

After a few weeks, he feels worn down. Runs go poorly. He doesn't like running so much anymore. "I just can't handle high mileage". I make sure to let him know he's supposed to be running that extra mileage easy. "Oh I am, so easy. I just not built for it"

Sometimes that's the end of the story. But if he keeps a running log and actually lets me see it, what I far more often find is that those 3 days per week at 7 minutes per mile became 6 days per week at... you guessed it 7 minutes per mile. Or (if he got excited about his good race results), even faster. Because people have this bizarre tendency to associate themselves with a training pace, to wrap it into their identity. "I run 7 minutes per mile. That's who I am"

And sure that pace that feels easy to him on 3 days per week. He starts each run feeling rested. But it nothing like that at all when running 6 days per week. It wears him down. And after a few weeks of it Runner X says, "I just can't do high mileage".

I have lost track of the number of "injury-prone" friends of mine tell me how easily they run their easy days when they really don't. Some of the most experienced runners I know. In the world of Strava stalking it's plain to see. I've even occasionally seen it in my own logs looking back. I thought I was going so easily but there are the paces, day after day, making it clear I really wasn't. There is the steady slow progression of injury/fatigue/poor racing in the comments making it clear.

I think we all have a blindness to it in ourselves. And the result of that is years wasted to injury and/or inadequate training.

The simple fact is that unless you
  • have some sort of vitamin/iron deficiency
  • are enfeebled by old age
  • have a chronic injury/medical condition
you will run-race faster better on 6 days per week of running compared to 3. Not necessarily in the short term, but definitely in the long term -- if you can get to the long term. Most people who do it right see results within weeks. Some people take months.

People tend to get annoyed at me when I tell them this stuff. "You're over-generalizing" or "I'm different". Or, my favorite (because it boosts my ego to be told this): "You are an 'elite' runner [ha] and what applies to you doesn't apply to me"

Nope. You are not special. Neither am I. Our bodies all pretty much respond to controlled stress the same way. The key is to actually control it. And the single biggest requirement of that is to respect the distance and moderate your effort.
  • You have got to give your body a chance to get used to volume. That means either increasing gradually or in the very least, temporarily dropping speed.
  • You have got to run easy runs EASILY. The kind of easy where you finish feeling like you hardly did anything. Where you are left champing at the bit because you want to run fast. It is impossible to run too slowly on an easy day. There is no such thing. Don't worry about pace, worry about effort.
  • You have got to limit the hard days to one or two per week until you are completely accustomed to the mileage.

Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [JoeO] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well said, Joe
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [JoeO] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thank you JoeO for your response I appreciate advice from someone who appears to have a lot of experience. I am healthy and have been ramping up volume steadily, its just been a really slow process and lately I feel like I am just getting slower. My buddies success has given me a different perspective. He did lose 25# over that same period of time too.
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [mlyonsdc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It seems like the general consensus is that I should be able to see improvement but there is a lot of skepticism on whether or not I can actually qualify for Boston and PR in IM

Yeah - that's what I was afraid of. Well, I will update the thread later - cause I would love to (not so humbly) brag if I can actually BQ..

Thanks for the feedback. Slowtwitch Mafia pulls through once again.
Quote Reply
Re: Low volume marathon plan, then transition to 16 wk IM plan [tobrien] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I can't wait to hear about it. Let's meet at the Ironman finish in Wisconsin and see how we each did!
Quote Reply