Relative newbie - more miles in due time?

[quote="Stephanie"...I know my only goal should be to finish and it is, but...[/quote]

Don't feel guilty about having a time goal for your first marathon. It's completely optional. The difficulty is knowing what that goal should be, because prediction tables assume you are adequately trained for the race distance and pace. This would be unusual for a first marathon. My first marathon, I had an unrealistic time goal and hit the wall about 16 miles. The last 10 miles were long and painful. I never regretted a moment of it though, of course, I would have preferred to get it right first time.

Slow and steady should be the way to go here. I think that your body just needs to adjust and get used to being put through 14 mile training runs. It's definitely something that takes time, but you will eventually get there. Every once and a while I will have a training run that is just awful. I think that it's my body telly me to slow down and take a break. A lighter running day or even a day off usually does the trick.

Chris Coleman wrote:

Stephanie wrote:...I know my only goal should be to finish and it is, but...

Don't feel guilty about having a time goal for your first marathon. It's completely optional. The difficulty is knowing what that goal should be, because prediction tables assume you are adequately trained for the race distance and pace. This would be unusual for a first marathon. My first marathon, I had an unrealistic time goal and hit the wall about 16 miles. The last 10 miles were long and painful. I never regretted a moment of it though, of course, I would have preferred to get it right first time.

I don't necessarily have a time goal in mind... it's more of a state of being that I'm aiming for. I know it's going to be hard, but I want to feel as though finishing is attainable, that I'm well prepared.

Nick Morris wrote:Slow and steady should be the way to go here. I think that your body just needs to adjust and get used to being put through 14 mile training runs. It's definitely something that takes time, but you will eventually get there. Every once and a while I will have a training run that is just awful. I think that it's my body telly me to slow down and take a break. A lighter running day or even a day off usually does the trick.

Ah yes, I have a feeling my body was telling me something too Nick. I will continue as I am, but I will focus on patience and going slow & steady as you have suggested.

I had a time frame I thought was reasonable based on my last 20 miler and did end up finishing just a few minutes faster for my first. I don't think it's bad to have a time for friends/family to be watching for you at the finish line, you just don't want to get too ambitious and have a miserable last 6-10 miles of the marathon from going out too fast (and it's a temptation to go out too fast for almost every marathoner no matter how many we've run).

Slight detour of topic here but Ounce said something earlier which made me think of it.

I believe there's a oft repeated saying about marathon training that your long run shouldn't be more than 1/3 of your mileage for the week and 20-30% is a better goal.

I think there's wisdom in that saying and a lot of "Relative Newbies" (your term but a good one) start out violating it and trouble creeps in.

Not to pick on Ounce too much but some basic math would say if you are doing a 20 miler in a 40 mile week, a full 50% of your mileage came from the long run. Danger danger danger.

A 100 mile week can fit in a 20 miler with the long run only being 20% of the weekly total. Very safe as that runner who got to the 100 mile per week level can handle the big stresses of such a long run.

More sanely, a 20 mile long run in a 60 mile week is 1/3 of the mileage for the week. That's right at the level I've heard you shouldn't go over. In other words, people shouldn't be doing 20s unless they do 60 that week. People here - and I inlcude myself in that at least in the past - have violated that many times and I think it invites in the types of soreness and fatigue you've had on some of your long runs. 60 is a ton of mileage in a week and yet people here are constantly talking about 20s they've done and I don't think they are at that weekly mileage level. Is it any wonder that we also get a lot of discussion here about injuries/soreness/forced rest when so many of us violate the 33% rule?

So do the math for yourself. If 12 is your long for the week, are you doing 36 or more miles that week? If not, you are officially on thin ice.

I'll steal Manning's statement of "RUN MORE" being the solution. If a runner simply starts adding in several 3-5 mile runs during the week, the weekly mileage starts to creep up and suddenly that 12-20 miler as the weekly long run is a "safe" 20-33% percentage of the weekly mileage.

Ok, thread detour but I think relevant generally to the topic.....discuss the Do Not Exceed 33% Rule.

It's a NICE rule, Chris, that Do Not Exceed 33% Rule. You're right, the wisdom of any one training run can't be properly evaluated in its own context.

But, can they be evaluated in the context of just that week? Or, are the timing and stress level of the runs on the days preceding it and immediately after it just as important in measuring the thickness of the ice?

What about the several weeks preceding the week that contains the 20 miler, and the ones after it?

What I think I learned is that you can't cram for the marathon. You have to build up to a training level over a period of a few years. Then, consistency becomes the key. If I'm running 20+ milers every other week, throwing one into a 40 mile step back week probably make the "ice" safer even at 50% than if it's the only 20 miler I run in an 18 week plan where I average 40 MPW.

I also learned what I can and can't do on the day before that 20 miler. The hard way, of course, by bonking a couple of times before I understood it.

I violated that 33% rule pretty often my last two cycles, hitting 50% for the weekend almost every week, and hitting 40% to 45% for that one long run more than once or twice. For me, it worked. For the next person, it may not.

I wonder if the 33% rule is for every week of training, or just an average, because I have also heard it said that one should do at least one 20-miler, and I don't think that would sit well with a strict 33% rule for most marathon novices. I really don't know the answer and I wonder if I trained wisely. Any views?

I'm sure, Stephanie, you will forgive the digression, but I assume that it will be as important to you as it is to me.

Chris (other)

Chris M wrote:Slight detour of topic here but Ounce said something earlier which made me think of it.

I believe there's a oft repeated saying about marathon training that your long run shouldn't be more than 1/3 of your mileage for the week and 20-30% is a better goal.

I think there's wisdom in that saying and a lot of "Relative Newbies" (your term but a good one) start out violating it and trouble creeps in.

Not to pick on Ounce too much but some basic math would say if you are doing a 20 miler in a 40 mile week, a full 50% of your mileage came from the long run. Danger danger danger.

A 100 mile week can fit in a 20 miler with the long run only being 20% of the weekly total. Very safe as that runner who got to the 100 mile per week level can handle the big stresses of such a long run.

More sanely, a 20 mile long run in a 60 mile week is 1/3 of the mileage for the week. That's right at the level I've heard you shouldn't go over. In other words, people shouldn't be doing 20s unless they do 60 that week. People here - and I inlcude myself in that at least in the past - have violated that many times and I think it invites in the types of soreness and fatigue you've had on some of your long runs. 60 is a ton of mileage in a week and yet people here are constantly talking about 20s they've done and I don't think they are at that weekly mileage level. Is it any wonder that we also get a lot of discussion here about injuries/soreness/forced rest when so many of us violate the 33% rule?

So do the math for yourself. If 12 is your long for the week, are you doing 36 or more miles that week? If not, you are officially on thin ice.

I'll steal Manning's statement of "RUN MORE" being the solution. If a runner simply starts adding in several 3-5 mile runs during the week, the weekly mileage starts to creep up and suddenly that 12-20 miler as the weekly long run is a "safe" 20-33% percentage of the weekly mileage.

Ok, thread detour but I think relevant generally to the topic.....discuss the Do Not Exceed 33% Rule.

Yep I think Chris is spot on in is thinking when it comes to a new runner! A lot of new or "newbies" get in trouble by bitting off to much to chew in a lot of aspects of training for any race distance. I know because I made some of those same mistakes when I started out.

I will added at least for myself is that things have changed over the years as my mind and body have adapted to racing/training. Which means I break a lot of "So called running rules"! As I have run more I don't believe in or listen to the "so called rules". Why? Because I don't care about the so called rules and out to break barriers for myself. I'm more on a journey to find out what fits for me and to see how far I can push my body.

I have run up to 70% to 80% of my mileage in 2 days before. Would I recommend this to someone? Yes/No I really think it is up to the individual person to decided what they feel they can handle and not handle.

Marshall Ulrich is a good example of this (for those who don't know Marshall Ulrich is the man! He was endurance athlete, ultra runner and climbed all Seven Summits).

"His prolific athletic career has earned him numerous wins, records, and firsts on some of the toughest courses in the world, and taken him to the top of the highest moutons, including Mount Everest- all in his forties and fifties. He defies the ideas of "TOO FAR," "TOO OLF", and "NOT POSSIBLE."." And he is married and has 3 kids!

What makes all this relative to what Chris and what I'm saying is that it is important to learn and take things slow at first and learn the sport of running and learn things about yourself. Yes mistakes will be made and lessons will be learned but that is what it is all about. To me living life under someone's RULES or being told you can or you can't do that to me is crazy. And Marshall is just one example of how ages, being a husband and father didn't stop him from doing things that people didn't think were possible and that includes exceeding for so call mileage % number for weekly milage.

Couple of examples of mileage by Marshall:

One week total mileage of 120+ then the next week 163 miles 135 done in two days 36:44 mins and then summits Mt. Whitney total distance in 97:45 is 157 miles.

Next week 200 miles with 3 days being 150 miles (50 miles, 50 miles and 50 miles)

Another week of 160+ miles with 140 miles done in 2 days.

So there go another rule breaker. Again do I recommend this to someone Nope! Do I recommend try to do something like this for myself? Sure do. Do I think I can or will be able to do something like that above? Don't know the answer to that question yet but sure do plan on finding out someday.


Again bottom line is like Matt M says "RUN MORE"! And as you gain knowledge don't be scared to stop out of the so called "Rules" of running and find out what you and your body are capable of doing. I do recommend that you should build up to these things slowly and allow your body the time to adapt but again to me the distance and what we all do is different for each of us.

Sorry for getting off topic, just liked what Chris had to say and felt that I wold like to show at least one example of one person who doesn't follow the so called running worlds rules and decided to step out of that world and do what they felt was right for them and pushed the limits.


Just my random thoughts for today!

Most training programs call for at least one 20 miler even for a novice and it can't be 33% for most of them (I didn't run 60 miles/week until I was training for my 13th marathon) and during your 20 miler week you probably will decrease the rest of your mileage as a precaution for injuries (right?) and make sure you have a rest day afterward (or at least I do unless it was my ultra training in which case yes I'd run 12-14 miles the next day but that's ultra and not 26.2). So I don't think 33% can be a hard rule or a novice running about 35-40 mpw wouldn't get above 13-14 for a long run.

I think I agree with MVW that its a nice rule but can be honored in the breach as often as it is followed. But I think you should be honest with yourself about what you are doing when you openly violate it. If you are only running 4 days a week, its going to be almost impossible to go long and fit into that rule. But why are you running 4 days a week? Are you getting hurt/injured due to the long runs? If not, it probably works for you. But if you are going to be regularly doing single runs that compromise 40%+ of your weekly mileage, I think there is a strong argument that it is not setting you up for an ideal marathon time and potentially bringing on a injury risk.

I think I see a direct link between a lot of people violating that rule and then struggling with running related injuries. My own view is that you should be running injury free for a good couple of months before you start doing 20s as part of relatively light (under 60) mileage weeks. A better approach I think is lots of shorter runs to beef up the weekly mileage.

Another detour question......for marathons, which is more important, average weekly mileage or long run distance? My answer is obvious and it is that your average weekly mileage will have a far greater impact on your ultimate time than how many long runs you did and what those distances were. I think it is the Hanson group (?) that does pretty mega mileage but pretty much never does 20s. I think that's a better approach than light mileage and lots of 20s.

Of course, life gets in the way and some of us need to maximize the time we've got and it is easier for me to do a 22 mile run on a weekend than add 30 miles by doing 5 additional 6 mile runs in a week. In marathon training, I probably break the 33% rule every other week? But I still think the better training stimulus and path to the best marathon times is to get the weekly mileage up as high as possible and the long runs then have less importance. I'd rather say "I averaged [high number] miles per week this cycle" than "I did [high number] of 20s this cycle".

Chris M wrote:Not to pick on Ounce too much but some basic math would say if you are doing a 20 miler in a 40 mile week, a full 50% of your mileage came from the long run. Danger danger danger.

Don't give it a second thought. I just do what I do, until it don't work no more.

Perhaps a summary of the rules discussion might be this:

The more experience you have in terms of racing and the more mileage you have under your belt, so to speak, makes it easier for you to "break the rules" and not have it be as likely to affect your training in terms of fatigue and or injuries. The body adapts as long as we take the process slowly and in small pieces and don't get in too big a hurry.

I too had more success with the "run more" philosophy. The biggest challenge was figuring out how to work it into my schedule and not have it create imbalances in other areas of life.

Chris Coleman wrote:I'm sure, Stephanie, you will forgive the digression, but I assume that it will be as important to you as it is to me.

Chris (other)

Oh goodness Chris I am very pleased to have such a digression. I raised a similar question awhile back either in the early days of 365 or just a bit before we all left Hal's site. I look forward to reading about everyone's thoughts on this matter.

Julie wrote:Most training programs call for at least one 20 miler even for a novice and it can't be 33% for most of them (I didn't run 60 miles/week until I was training for my 13th marathon) and during your 20 miler week you probably will decrease the rest of your mileage as a precaution for injuries (right?) and make sure you have a rest day afterward (or at least I do unless it was my ultra training in which case yes I'd run 12-14 miles the next day but that's ultra and not 26.2). So I don't think 33% can be a hard rule or a novice running about 35-40 mpw wouldn't get above 13-14 for a long run.

Thanks for stating this Julie! I think many runners on this forum are highly experienced and speedy runners however their 'rules' can't be applied to Novices. If newer runners were to follow this 33% rule, very few people would be able to move up to the marathon distance, ever. That said, people's observations about breaking these runner's rules leads to injuries also carries weight. I am not saying I have built a significant enough of a base or weekly mileage to move up to the marthon distance to run the times that many of you have, but many people have finished marathons using Novice or Intermediate plans running lower mileage. I do think many people on this forum are in a class of their own with 60+, 80+ miles/week and I doubt you were born running that mileage. You guys got their somehow and I too would like to move up, in time, when my body is ready.

I'm not speedy and you're right we all started somewhere. I couldn't have run 3 blocks (maybe .2 mile) 8 years ago. We'll all be here to try to help you train smart for your first marathon. I have no doubt that you can do it but I think the biggest thing is to avoid injury while still logging the necessary miles.

Stephanie wrote:
Thanks for stating this Julie! I think many runners on this forum are highly experienced and speedy runners however their 'rules' can't be applied to Novices. If newer runners were to follow this 33% rule, very few people would be able to move up to the marathon distance, ever. That said, people's observations about breaking these runner's rules leads to injuries also carries weight. I am not saying I have built a significant enough of a base or weekly mileage to move up to the marthon distance to run the times that many of you have, but many people have finished marathons using Novice or Intermediate plans running lower mileage. I do think many people on this forum are in a class of their own with 60+, 80+ miles/week and I doubt you were born running that mileage. You guys got their somehow and I too would like to move up, in time, when my body is ready.

Stephanie, one thing that I would like to add for you to consider is that you don't need to have run a whole bunch of marathons to train like a "veteran." The marathon cycle I just finished - my last - was "only" my fourth. My first (2007) I averaged 37.5 MPW. My second (2008) bumped that to 46. I averaged 53 for my third (2010) and fourth (2012). And I had no background as a runner prior to that (I ran a few 5Ks in the late 1980s but I didn't really train for them, just ran them on the fitness level I had from another sport).

Building miles smartly over time is absolutely possible. It does take time, but it doesn't take YEARS. What it takes is consistency. Avoid prolonged breaks (unless life inteecedes) and build slowly, gradually, and consistently. You'll be at 60 before you know it.

Stephanie wrote:

Julie wrote:Most training programs call for at least one 20 miler even for a novice and it can't be 33% for most of them (I didn't run 60 miles/week until I was training for my 13th marathon) and during your 20 miler week you probably will decrease the rest of your mileage as a precaution for injuries (right?) and make sure you have a rest day afterward (or at least I do unless it was my ultra training in which case yes I'd run 12-14 miles the next day but that's ultra and not 26.2). So I don't think 33% can be a hard rule or a novice running about 35-40 mpw wouldn't get above 13-14 for a long run.

Thanks for stating this Julie! I think many runners on this forum are highly experienced and speedy runners however their 'rules' can't be applied to Novices. If newer runners were to follow this 33% rule, very few people would be able to move up to the marathon distance, ever. That said, people's observations about breaking these runner's rules leads to injuries also carries weight. I am not saying I have built a significant enough of a base or weekly mileage to move up to the marthon distance to run the times that many of you have, but many people have finished marathons using Novice or Intermediate plans running lower mileage. I do think many people on this forum are in a class of their own with 60+, 80+ miles/week and I doubt you were born running that mileage. You guys got their somehow and I too would like to move up, in time, when my body is ready.

And to point a little light on a different part of this is the time spent on your feet during a long run. Some plans and coaches will say not to spend more than 3 hours on your feet during a long run, due to injury risk.

I had to throw that one out the window for my first marathon, because I run 6 hour marathons. Further, if I just run 20 miles, I have another 80 minutes on my feet to get to the finish line. That's a long time. Somebody that runs an 8 minute pace will only have to run an additional 48 minutes, after doing 20 miles. So for two training cycles, I was trying to do long runs where I was on my feet for at least 85-90% of the time I expected to be racing.

In the end, my core problem was too much weight. I dropped 30 pounds, then did long runs at (close your eyes, Stephanie ) MP with a negative split. 29 minute year over year improvement. I found my plan and I've lost another 18 pounds, since Houston.

Chris M wrote: Another detour question......for marathons, which is more important, average weekly mileage or long run distance? My answer is obvious and it is that your average weekly mileage will have a far greater impact on your ultimate time than how many long runs you did and what those distances were. I think it is the Hanson group (?) that does pretty mega mileage but pretty much never does 20s. I think that's a better approach than light mileage and lots of 20s.

Of course, life gets in the way and some of us need to maximize the time we've got and it is easier for me to do a 22 mile run on a weekend than add 30 miles by doing 5 additional 6 mile runs in a week. In marathon training, I probably break the 33% rule every other week? But I still think the better training stimulus and path to the best marathon times is to get the weekly mileage up as high as possible and the long runs then have less importance. I'd rather say "I averaged [high number] miles per week this cycle" than "I did [high number] of 20s this cycle".

1. In my opinion I would have to say that the average weekly mileage is more important to me also. There are just too many benefits you get from the consistency in training by putting in the miles everyday.

2. The Hanson don't necessary due high mileage but you are correct that there one plan less is more the long run mileage tops out at 18 miles. The plans philosophy is good amount of high intensity running at MP or faster and going into the weekends long run on tired legs to simulate the effects of what it would feel like running 20 plus miles. So my take is since they do more of the hard/faster runner and you are a little more beat up you do a shorter long run.

3. I would also agree on your last point that life gets in the way or you just wanted to try something else and in that case I feel that if you are training for a marathon or longer if you had to choice between a workout that is a must have every week that would then be a long run. But again ideally I would still go with being consistent and allowing the body to adapt and taking in the benefits of running more.

Personally I have trained both ways and have found success but I would have to say that my best races where I surprised myself with being able to out perform my goals came during training cycles were I was consistent and running more and having a good balance of training runs.

Martin VW wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
Thanks for stating this Julie! I think many runners on this forum are highly experienced and speedy runners however their 'rules' can't be applied to Novices. If newer runners were to follow this 33% rule, very few people would be able to move up to the marathon distance, ever. That said, people's observations about breaking these runner's rules leads to injuries also carries weight. I am not saying I have built a significant enough of a base or weekly mileage to move up to the marthon distance to run the times that many of you have, but many people have finished marathons using Novice or Intermediate plans running lower mileage. I do think many people on this forum are in a class of their own with 60+, 80+ miles/week and I doubt you were born running that mileage. You guys got their somehow and I too would like to move up, in time, when my body is ready.

Stephanie, one thing that I would like to add for you to consider is that you don't need to have run a whole bunch of marathons to train like a "veteran." The marathon cycle I just finished - my last - was "only" my fourth. My first (2007) I averaged 37.5 MPW. My second (2008) bumped that to 46. I averaged 53 for my third (2010) and fourth (2012). And I had no background as a runner prior to that (I ran a few 5Ks in the late 1980s but I didn't really train for them, just ran them on the fitness level I had from another sport).

Building miles smartly over time is absolutely possible. It does take time, but it doesn't take YEARS. What it takes is consistency. Avoid prolonged breaks (unless life inteecedes) and build slowly, gradually, and consistently. You'll be at 60 before you know it.

I'm such an MVW fanboy that I think I count his marathons better than he does....its 6, I believe. 2 Bostons, Hartford, Chicago, Disney and that nighttime one. MVW will get all technical and scientific on me and say it was only 4 "training" cycles and a couple were just done as easyish long runs but all 26.2's count so we all know I'm right and MVW is wrong wrong wrong and doesn't know how to count.

Chris M wrote:
I'm such an MVW fanboy that I think I count his marathons better than he does....its 6, I believe. 2 Bostons, Hartford, Chicago, Disney and that nighttime one. MVW will get all technical and scientific on me and say it was only 4 "training" cycles and a couple were just done as easyish long runs but all 26.2's count so we all know I'm right and MVW is wrong wrong wrong and doesn't know how to count.

I did both Disney and "that nighttime one" off of half marathon training. If that's "all technical and scientific" then guilty as charged counsellor.

Following your logic, does the 25.9 mile training run I did on the course 4 weeks before Boston count as my 7th? I mean, 0.3 miles is just a technicality, isn't it?

Martin VW wrote:

I did both Disney and "that nighttime one" off of half marathon training. If that's "all technical and scientific" then guilty as charged counsellor.

How about you distinguish between racing and running? You've raced 4 marathons; you've run six.

Dave-O wrote:

Martin VW wrote:

I did both Disney and "that nighttime one" off of half marathon training. If that's "all technical and scientific" then guilty as charged counsellor.

How about you distinguish between racing and running? You've raced 4 marathons; you've run six.

Without sidetracking the discussion entirely, that's how I do phrase it. Actually only ran three 100% all out, my first one I intentionally ran the first half at probably 90% effort. I mean, should we count every 13.1 mile training run as a completed "half marathon?" What about when we use races as supported training runs?

Bringing it back to the topic, one of the really powerful thing about boards like this one and it's predescessor by He Who Shall Remain Nameless is that we really can accelerate the learning curve and train and race effectively in a shorter time. I am, still, very much a novice marathoner when it comes to practical experience. I think I have leaned heavily on the collective feedback loop that so many here contribute to, and put that collective wisdom into action. I've taken some risks, but I think they were appropriate risks - for me - that I thought through and socialized before I took them.

So, Stephanie, there's no one path to follow. While the collective wisdom is A, it's sometimes OK to follow B to help you get to C. Just make sure you're listening to your body - as you have demonstrated that you do.

So out of those 66.7% miles, how many junk is allowed?

I agree about learning curves. Some can absorb and process information more quickly and incorporate it into their training. However, there are different kinds of "improvement", and while some can be realized in the shorter term (< 3ish years), others are not realized until later (> 3ish years). There is a generalized belief that a given runner does not peak until somewhere near the 7 year mark (of consistent training), regardless of when one begins. I've seen that generalization hold true time and time again, though not always at 7 years. Some supporting physiological adaptations take many years to realize. I started at 38 and ran my best marathon at 44. I believe that I have at least one more decent PR in me.

So, building mileage is part of a longer-term cycle where the 'best' benefits may not be realized for several marathon training cycles.

And Jerry, there are no junk miles; only junk paces.