I ran Philly last year in 3:37 while injured and on a pretty minimal training plan. I signed up for Philly again this year. This past March I did a 1/2 marathon in 1:31 and then this past triathlon season I was doing 1/2 IM runs in 1:37-1:40. The run portion of my tri training was 30-35 miles per week.
I love running, but my weakest sport is swimming BY FAR, and my strongest is cycling. So for the winter I plan on hanging up the bike and working intensively with a swim coach 4-5x a week while also training for the Philly marathon. I would like to have a good race but I am mainly doing it as a way to get through the tri-free winter, so if I only run slightly better than last year that’s OK with me (although I would like to do it in 2x my HIM run, so 3:15-3:20) - my swim is what really needs improvement. I came across this very interesting training plan that emphasizes two key run workouts per week and am curious if it would work for my situation:
Would it make sense for me to do just the two runs per week then do my 4-5 swims plus maybe an easy bike or two for recovery? Or am I setting myself up for a disaster by only running 2x per week? FYI my total volume for this past year averaged about 15 hours per week and my HIM times were 4:45 (EagleMan) and 4:55 (TimberMan).
Also FYI, before you 1:15 HIM runners start telling me my 1:37 HIM run is crap, my HIM swim is 39 mins, so my swim really, really, really desperately needs the most work
I ran Philly last year in 3:37 while injured and on a pretty minimal training plan. I signed up for Philly again this year. This past March I did a 1/2 marathon in 1:31 and then this past triathlon season I was doing 1/2 IM runs in 1:37-1:40. The run portion of my tri training was 30-35 miles per week.
I love running, but my weakest sport is swimming BY FAR, and my strongest is cycling. So for the winter I plan on hanging up the bike and working intensively with a swim coach 4-5x a week while also training for the Philly marathon. I would like to have a good race but I am mainly doing it as a way to get through the tri-free winter, so if I only run slightly better than last year that’s OK with me (although I would like to do it in 2x my HIM run, so 3:15-3:20) - my swim is what really needs improvement. I came across this very interesting training plan that emphasizes two key run workouts per week and am curious if it would work for my situation:
Would it make sense for me to do just the two runs per week then do my 4-5 swims plus maybe an easy bike or two for recovery? Or am I setting myself up for a disaster by only running 2x per week? FYI my total volume for this past year averaged about 15 hours per week and my HIM times were 4:45 (EagleMan) and 4:55 (TimberMan).
Also FYI, before you 1:15 HIM runners start telling me my 1:37 HIM run is crap, my HIM swim is 39 mins, so my swim really, really, really desperately needs the most work
I am a 1:15 HM runner and would have killed for a 1:37 yesterday at Tman.
FWIW, you run well at HIM compared to standalone runs, which to me is a good indicator of holding up well in the second half of a marathon. I think 2 runs per week is a little bit light, maybe you could get away with three, as long as you were getting 25 - 30 miles total.
What is you definition of decent? How fast do you want to run. I think you have good fitness, if you weren’t looking to better your 3:37, maybe two runs would work.
It’s certainly possible to do a marathon on 2 runs per week, but I don’t know if you can expect to get faster than last time.
In one of Galloway’s books I saw a graph of training effect vs. number of weekly runs. It was sigmoidal, with 3 runs per week right in the middle. That indicates that 3 runs/week will give you the best return for your effort, with more runs resulting in diminishing returns and fewer runs just not doing a whole lot. Maybe 2 runs plus the other cardio stuff would be similar to the 3-run situation in this graph, but you also have to consider that for the marathon your legs have to get used to pounding on whatever surface for 26.2 miles, and non-running workouts won’t give you that. I have a feeling that with 2 runs/week, you can get your endurance up enough to go the distance, but your feet will just be killin’ you on race day. Like, killin’ you so much that you have to slow down.
I guess decent for me would be 3:15-3:20, or 2x my HIM run times this year. But really as long as I improve on my 3:37 from last year I’ll be happy with it so long as my swim times improve over the winter. I feel like so long as I just maintain my current run fitness from now until November I will be able to do that, but I could be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time
3:37 is not that slow. Unless you did very little training to get that time, even with cross training 2 runs per week sounds like it won’t get you faster. I doubt you are going to get any response from someone who did a marathon PR on two runs per week, since I doubt anyone would try it. It could work, if you try at least you won’t feel like you wasted a lot of time doing it;)
I think 2X a week is just too little. I admit i really do like the plan, but I would back up the long runs with another easy 5 mi. or so the day after and add a 4th easy day, maybe 25-40 min. That would only be another 80-90 min. of run training a week, and I think it would help. If you bike a modest amount (say 2X1-2 hrs a week) then just 3 runs a week might work. With a 91 min. half PR, a 3:15 is certainly possible, but only with higher mileage. Happy training.
