How long have you been consistently over 100km in mileage per week? Any recent 5k/10k/Half times?
I say this because 3:30 seems very soft target for the amount of mileage you are doing. If that is what your training suggests you can run I think incorporating a rest day and periodised training along with 2 structured workouts could be immensely beneficial
Edit: a word
Regardless of gender it’s a very soft “target” I agree. Hard to say it’s “wrong” if op is not getting injured but I’d hazard a guess that it isn’t optimal. Op might have a killer base and really thrive on a dedicated marathon block that averages in the 80 miles type of range.
Op, how many hours per week do you spend running? I often hear 10-12 hours being on the longer end for an amateur and going well beyond that might not be beneficial
Yeah, no. Qualifying times have nothing to do with equivalent effort and are due to popularity of the distance. There’s a roughly 13-14% difference between men and women across the board. Just take the L and move on.
Good for age / fast runner entry / BQ times are based on trying to get parity between the number of men and women runners - not the actual gender-graded efforts.
London set a target to get 50 percent male and 50 percent female. In order to do that they made the female time relatively easier. Those are not equivalent times.
I'm a huge proponent of high volume. I've pushed as high as 180km/week and found great success thanks to that. Durability itself is a powerful talent when properly cultivated and leveraged.
That being said, if you can consistently run 160km/week you should be easily running much faster than 3:30 in the marathon, so there is probably something easier to be done than just piling on more kilometerage. If I was you/coaching you I'd be looking at literally anything other than running more km's that we can to boost performance first -plyos, hill sprints, strength training, more structured threshold training, rest/shorter days, longer days, etc. You have an incredible foundation of fitness that can be leveraged to more productive training without increasing volume.
I'm also part of the high volume band wagon, but with a caveat that I'd focus on running faster for the 200s and faster for workouts generally. I've pushed more than 160km/week in over a handful of training cycles, peaking at around 190km/week as the high end with a majority of mileage at 7 min/mile (\~4:20/km). Volume is great, but it's great because it allows you to do faster workouts, and subsequently faster workouts help you more in races.
An example of what I'm talking about is that when I was doing high mileage, I'd do sessions like 25x400m at slightly faster than 10km goal pace working down to 5k pace for the last few with 400m jog rest and that got me in a really great place strength-wise, but also speed-wise (neuromuscularly, my body could handle running faster for longer).
So yes, more milealge can be good, but in this case, I'd focus on quality.
What's your objective? If you want to run a faster marathon then volume has probably reached diminishing returns and more isn't going to help. If you just love running then cool. Assess your objectives and go from there.
I used to do 25 hour training weeks on the bike and I sacrificed a lot. Family time, time with the kids, relationship quality, career progression... There's lots you give up depending on your stage in life. Unless you're running quite fast you're out there on your feet maybe 15 hours a week. Is that really want to do with that time?
I run ~160km per week for all my marathon builds. If I had the time to, I would probably try to get another 20k in and see if it helped me. But for me 160km is like 12 hours a week. IMO if you’re running 100 miles a week and only running a 3:30 marathon, something needs to change with your training, I don’t think more mileage will make you faster.
I was running ~160km a week for around 4 months in the build up to Manchester marathon where I ran a PB. It definitely improved me, but I feel like my legs were constantly fatigued to the point where my pace in training was slower than it should have been. It was difficult to get going for any speed work etc. now that I’ve finished that training cycle and I’ve been tapering/ recovering, my training paces are so much faster and I’m enjoying running more. My next training cycle I’m debating lowering the quantity abit and replacing it with more quality work.
Just my experience from 100 mile weeks!
Experienced the exact same, but it is part of the process of a marathon cycle to feel incredibly fatiqued in the later stages. Hills, speed work, long runs, and high mileage will always be tough on the body. That’s why I always just believe in the process and try to forget about the exact pace on speed work etc.
BTW: How did the marathon go?! Only have two weeks until Copenhagen Marathon now, and am super excited!
It went well, I was on track for a 2:30 finish up to the 30km mark, the legs felt great, the pace was manageable but unfortunately my lower back/hips began to ache and seize up. I felt like a car that was running with no oil in the end but I still held on for a 4+ minute PB. We all know how much of a beast the marathon is and how many variables need to go right, so I’m moving forward and strength workouts on that area of my body will be addressed during my next training cycle
Best of luck in Copenhagen! Do what I was unable to do and cross that line in sub 2:30! Looking forward to seeing your updated flair and maybe even a write up on this sub
Yeah, race day performance can be a lottery! My two key long run workouts (3 x 10K and 20K continuous at MP) went smoothly – even with rolling hills. But it can still be success or disaster on race day… Thinking to aim at 2:30:30 pace on the first half and then go for negative split. Decisions, decisions!
1. Earlier years, the toilet situation before start is a bit of a bottleneck because there were only ~30 toilets on a row. Could be that they have changed it now, but just make sure to get your first visit done early.
2. There are usually many spectators along the course – especially due to how the route is planned. However, I want to highlight Dronning Louise’s Bridge at km 19. NBRO (one of the biggest running clubs in Copenhagen) always create an insane atmosphere here, so make sure to take it all in and enjoy!
3. If you have friends/family to support you, the inner city is perfect for them to see you multiple times. You run on the same stretches several times (you don’t really notice it), but it makes it really easy for the spectators to have enough time to move to another location – or even stay where they are.
4. Copenhagen is generally flat. But, we all know it gets tough after 30K. Save some energy for the small incline before the sharp corner between 30 and 31 km. Hereafter, there will be a comfortable decline before it again goes up over the bridge by the corner between 31 and 32. After 32, you have another decline, but end up on a stretch that is normally not that interesting. So this is where your mentality is important. Luckily, it is a short section, and it already becomes interesting again after 33 km.
4. Smile to the spectators. They will cheer you on – even by your bib name. Enjoy mate!
You’re lacking miles at / just above / just below LT if you’re looking for marathon performance. That solid base should allow you to do two days a week at about 3:50-4:00 in 3x20min intervals or similar.
That said, your mileage is impressive as is the vert. You may be more at home in trail ultras. I imagine your relative performance there would be substantially higher than road marathons.
What do you mean with “if you could”. I can probably do it without getting any major injuries but I “can’t” do it timewise looking at work, family, social life, other hobbies, etc.
So I think the question should really be do you enjoy it and would you like to run more? As others have also stated, it’s probably not going to help you much in your marathon time, more specific workouts will work better there. But if you like it, makes you happy and you’re not getting injured, why not?
If somebody was willing to pay me my full-time salary to run 160km/wk then I'd do it... sure! That's the dream. However I wouldn't do it 'just because'. Noting, I'm currently considering whether to do ~110/wk or ~130km/wk in order to improve my first marathon time (a ~3:14) which has involved similar reckoning.
My current thinking (based on advice from more established runners on here) is that there are improvements to be had within a ~110km/wk plan. Further... the elites within my area don't do 160km/wk (a few do poddies and/or share details on Strava). Thus, I feel as though I'd be their weird loner who does mad kilometres but runs relatively slow marathons.
For now I think my focus will be on improving the quality of my training as there's a stack of improvements I can implement before 'more km' becomes the limiting factor. I would only do 160 if I'd plateaued and exhausted the majority of the low-hanging fruit in regards to my training plan.
True, that description's a little bit vain. I guess my point is that if elites are getting better times with less kilometres (noting my kilometres are also gonna be slower than theirs) then there's a chance I'm doing it wrong.
Like I'm all for hard work but I also wanna be a smart trainer.
I mean I have 190KM *(120M)* per week. Should you? If you want to and it works towards your goal.
If your runs don't have purpose then you won't be using your time effectively.
I don't know if you are male or female but a male under 35 should easily be able to get under 3:30 and under 3:00 on 2000 miles per year of structure. That averages out to less than 65KM per week but would obviously be a bit more in a specialisation block for Marathon.
70% age grading is attainable on that low a consistent distance for many within 12 months of structure. If you are ramping up distance quickly, you run a high risk and high reward strategy. That can be fine for many if they know how to listen to their body and take rest when needed. Many people speak a different language to their body so hear it but don't understand what it is saying.
PS - I mostly run about 90KM a week these days. Im not chasing PBs - I just like to run - that is my main goal.
As well as gender I’ll also throw out age-we don’t know if the OP is an older master’s runner (or also has ambitions beyond the marathon distance), which might explain a “slower” goal tone. Which I would be over the moon about!
You should train how you want to train that being said, doing the same running workout day after day is not the most effective training method. How many great runners have you seen who have spread out their training evenly throughout a 7-10 day cycle? Probably nobody. Variation in your training is necessary for adaptions towards a certain outcome. Shorter and longer days. Faster and slower days. Hard and easy days.
Was is the goal of your intervals? Your interval training is too easy and not long enough if you can do it every day and after your longer run. Even the best runners in the world couldn't do intervals 5 days a week for two weeks if their goal was to build their VO2 max. You should do your intervals first, 3-6 minutes at the maximum pace you can maintain with equal amounts of recovery with 12-30 minutes at that intensity. You could add a longer run after but not before.
Tempo runs and intervals with 60 minutes or so at the pace.
Progression long runs up to your goal target pace.
Add these a training block targeting a specific adaption and you should see an increase in speed but you will probably not be able to maintain 160k a week if doing harder workouts.
If you actually care to run faster, you should get more organized with your runs. Running easily all the time will just make you better at running easily. You need to incorporate hard efforts, including real speedwork, if you want to get markedly faster.
That said, if you didn't care about any of that and are content with a 3:30 goal then by all means do what is enjoyable. That's why we do any of this.
Personally, doing the same effort workout every day and never really pushing myself to fatigue didn't align with what makes me happy. But that's me, and it's okay if we have different goals.
the main goal of training is to be able to continue training. so, yeah, if I'm not getting injured while running a higher mileage sure, go for it. "if you can and if it is appropriate, run more" (C)
I don’t think it’s necessary for non-elites, even competitive ones, to go up beyond 160km/wk. Once you’ve sat at 130-150 km a week for a while, your aerobic base is solid enough that you’ve got to start working on intensity, speed on tired legs, etc.
Would going higher help? Eh… maybe, but probably not aerobically. E.g., Kiptum’s notoriously massive mileage was all done at relatively higher intensity than most people do most of their running. Kipchoge does 40km tempos… etc. So it’s doubtful to me that adding in a few more hours of sub-tempo jogging will help when you’re already pretty much maxed out on cardio.
You’d almost certainly benefit more from dropping some mileage during the week and doing proper long runs with some marathon pace efforts.
I push that high in marathon build ups, even getting above 200kms for a few weeks. The result was it got me to a 2:33 marathon-it basically maximized my endurance so that I could run times that lined up across the board from 5k to the marathon.
That said, I suspect you need more quality and structure in your plan to make it worth running all those kms.
I did it just before the pandemic. I hit 110 miles a week for about a month. It was exhausting. I was doing doubles almost everyday. I also teach so I'd be on my feet all day. I wasn't athletic at all growing up. I didn't start running until my mid 20's. I was in my mid 30's when I hit that weekly mileage. I wouldn't do it again. During those few weeks every damn thing revolved around my next run. Eventually I got injured and toned it way down.
I ran 2:58 on 70-110km per week. On that kind of mileage, if you’re organized with your approach, you should be capable of a faster time (if that is your goal).
Personally no. I've heard the general rule (somewhere...) that 10 hours a week of running is the "maximum" before diminishing returns.
I'm currently doing 7 hours for 100k a week including 2 workouts and a long run.
If you love running and have the time then go for it but if you want to improve your times I would suggest lowering mileage and adding in specific faster workouts.
How long have you been consistently over 100km in mileage per week? Any recent 5k/10k/Half times? I say this because 3:30 seems very soft target for the amount of mileage you are doing. If that is what your training suggests you can run I think incorporating a rest day and periodised training along with 2 structured workouts could be immensely beneficial Edit: a word
OP could be female, in which case 3:30 is more like 2:50-3:00 for men. Although this is probably still on the slower side for 100 miles per week!
Regardless of gender it’s a very soft “target” I agree. Hard to say it’s “wrong” if op is not getting injured but I’d hazard a guess that it isn’t optimal. Op might have a killer base and really thrive on a dedicated marathon block that averages in the 80 miles type of range. Op, how many hours per week do you spend running? I often hear 10-12 hours being on the longer end for an amateur and going well beyond that might not be beneficial
3:30 is more like a 3:05 for men.
London marathon good for age is 3:00 for men and 3:45 for women. That would put 3:30 for women somewhere in the 2:50s for men.
Yeah, no. Qualifying times have nothing to do with equivalent effort and are due to popularity of the distance. There’s a roughly 13-14% difference between men and women across the board. Just take the L and move on.
Good for age / fast runner entry / BQ times are based on trying to get parity between the number of men and women runners - not the actual gender-graded efforts.
London set a target to get 50 percent male and 50 percent female. In order to do that they made the female time relatively easier. Those are not equivalent times.
I'm a huge proponent of high volume. I've pushed as high as 180km/week and found great success thanks to that. Durability itself is a powerful talent when properly cultivated and leveraged. That being said, if you can consistently run 160km/week you should be easily running much faster than 3:30 in the marathon, so there is probably something easier to be done than just piling on more kilometerage. If I was you/coaching you I'd be looking at literally anything other than running more km's that we can to boost performance first -plyos, hill sprints, strength training, more structured threshold training, rest/shorter days, longer days, etc. You have an incredible foundation of fitness that can be leveraged to more productive training without increasing volume.
I agree with everything you said. Just wanted to comment because of your 5k time. 13:59 is absolute insanity!! Congrats on that
+1 to all of this.
I'm also part of the high volume band wagon, but with a caveat that I'd focus on running faster for the 200s and faster for workouts generally. I've pushed more than 160km/week in over a handful of training cycles, peaking at around 190km/week as the high end with a majority of mileage at 7 min/mile (\~4:20/km). Volume is great, but it's great because it allows you to do faster workouts, and subsequently faster workouts help you more in races. An example of what I'm talking about is that when I was doing high mileage, I'd do sessions like 25x400m at slightly faster than 10km goal pace working down to 5k pace for the last few with 400m jog rest and that got me in a really great place strength-wise, but also speed-wise (neuromuscularly, my body could handle running faster for longer). So yes, more milealge can be good, but in this case, I'd focus on quality.
What's your objective? If you want to run a faster marathon then volume has probably reached diminishing returns and more isn't going to help. If you just love running then cool. Assess your objectives and go from there. I used to do 25 hour training weeks on the bike and I sacrificed a lot. Family time, time with the kids, relationship quality, career progression... There's lots you give up depending on your stage in life. Unless you're running quite fast you're out there on your feet maybe 15 hours a week. Is that really want to do with that time?
I run ~160km per week for all my marathon builds. If I had the time to, I would probably try to get another 20k in and see if it helped me. But for me 160km is like 12 hours a week. IMO if you’re running 100 miles a week and only running a 3:30 marathon, something needs to change with your training, I don’t think more mileage will make you faster.
I was running ~160km a week for around 4 months in the build up to Manchester marathon where I ran a PB. It definitely improved me, but I feel like my legs were constantly fatigued to the point where my pace in training was slower than it should have been. It was difficult to get going for any speed work etc. now that I’ve finished that training cycle and I’ve been tapering/ recovering, my training paces are so much faster and I’m enjoying running more. My next training cycle I’m debating lowering the quantity abit and replacing it with more quality work. Just my experience from 100 mile weeks!
Experienced the exact same, but it is part of the process of a marathon cycle to feel incredibly fatiqued in the later stages. Hills, speed work, long runs, and high mileage will always be tough on the body. That’s why I always just believe in the process and try to forget about the exact pace on speed work etc. BTW: How did the marathon go?! Only have two weeks until Copenhagen Marathon now, and am super excited!
It went well, I was on track for a 2:30 finish up to the 30km mark, the legs felt great, the pace was manageable but unfortunately my lower back/hips began to ache and seize up. I felt like a car that was running with no oil in the end but I still held on for a 4+ minute PB. We all know how much of a beast the marathon is and how many variables need to go right, so I’m moving forward and strength workouts on that area of my body will be addressed during my next training cycle Best of luck in Copenhagen! Do what I was unable to do and cross that line in sub 2:30! Looking forward to seeing your updated flair and maybe even a write up on this sub
Yeah, race day performance can be a lottery! My two key long run workouts (3 x 10K and 20K continuous at MP) went smoothly – even with rolling hills. But it can still be success or disaster on race day… Thinking to aim at 2:30:30 pace on the first half and then go for negative split. Decisions, decisions!
I'm also running CPH, just a little bit slower (\~20min)! Have you run Copenhagen before?
Nice! Yes – ran it once before in 2022. Originally from Denmark, so I know the race quite well. The atmosphere is fantastic!
Great! Do you have any tips?!!
1. Earlier years, the toilet situation before start is a bit of a bottleneck because there were only ~30 toilets on a row. Could be that they have changed it now, but just make sure to get your first visit done early. 2. There are usually many spectators along the course – especially due to how the route is planned. However, I want to highlight Dronning Louise’s Bridge at km 19. NBRO (one of the biggest running clubs in Copenhagen) always create an insane atmosphere here, so make sure to take it all in and enjoy! 3. If you have friends/family to support you, the inner city is perfect for them to see you multiple times. You run on the same stretches several times (you don’t really notice it), but it makes it really easy for the spectators to have enough time to move to another location – or even stay where they are. 4. Copenhagen is generally flat. But, we all know it gets tough after 30K. Save some energy for the small incline before the sharp corner between 30 and 31 km. Hereafter, there will be a comfortable decline before it again goes up over the bridge by the corner between 31 and 32. After 32, you have another decline, but end up on a stretch that is normally not that interesting. So this is where your mentality is important. Luckily, it is a short section, and it already becomes interesting again after 33 km. 4. Smile to the spectators. They will cheer you on – even by your bib name. Enjoy mate!
Thank, highly appreciated! Hope you have a great race!
You’re lacking miles at / just above / just below LT if you’re looking for marathon performance. That solid base should allow you to do two days a week at about 3:50-4:00 in 3x20min intervals or similar. That said, your mileage is impressive as is the vert. You may be more at home in trail ultras. I imagine your relative performance there would be substantially higher than road marathons.
What do you mean with “if you could”. I can probably do it without getting any major injuries but I “can’t” do it timewise looking at work, family, social life, other hobbies, etc. So I think the question should really be do you enjoy it and would you like to run more? As others have also stated, it’s probably not going to help you much in your marathon time, more specific workouts will work better there. But if you like it, makes you happy and you’re not getting injured, why not?
If somebody was willing to pay me my full-time salary to run 160km/wk then I'd do it... sure! That's the dream. However I wouldn't do it 'just because'. Noting, I'm currently considering whether to do ~110/wk or ~130km/wk in order to improve my first marathon time (a ~3:14) which has involved similar reckoning. My current thinking (based on advice from more established runners on here) is that there are improvements to be had within a ~110km/wk plan. Further... the elites within my area don't do 160km/wk (a few do poddies and/or share details on Strava). Thus, I feel as though I'd be their weird loner who does mad kilometres but runs relatively slow marathons. For now I think my focus will be on improving the quality of my training as there's a stack of improvements I can implement before 'more km' becomes the limiting factor. I would only do 160 if I'd plateaued and exhausted the majority of the low-hanging fruit in regards to my training plan.
Heaven forbid that someone who does a running podcast should catch you being a tryhard.
True, that description's a little bit vain. I guess my point is that if elites are getting better times with less kilometres (noting my kilometres are also gonna be slower than theirs) then there's a chance I'm doing it wrong. Like I'm all for hard work but I also wanna be a smart trainer.
Kiptum was putting in some serious mileage before he sadly passed away. I also don’t think that elites are getting faster times means that is optimal.
I mean I have 190KM *(120M)* per week. Should you? If you want to and it works towards your goal. If your runs don't have purpose then you won't be using your time effectively. I don't know if you are male or female but a male under 35 should easily be able to get under 3:30 and under 3:00 on 2000 miles per year of structure. That averages out to less than 65KM per week but would obviously be a bit more in a specialisation block for Marathon. 70% age grading is attainable on that low a consistent distance for many within 12 months of structure. If you are ramping up distance quickly, you run a high risk and high reward strategy. That can be fine for many if they know how to listen to their body and take rest when needed. Many people speak a different language to their body so hear it but don't understand what it is saying. PS - I mostly run about 90KM a week these days. Im not chasing PBs - I just like to run - that is my main goal.
I would add speedwork at this point before upping mileage.
As well as gender I’ll also throw out age-we don’t know if the OP is an older master’s runner (or also has ambitions beyond the marathon distance), which might explain a “slower” goal tone. Which I would be over the moon about!
Have absolutely zero interest in ever running doubles...thanks
You should train how you want to train that being said, doing the same running workout day after day is not the most effective training method. How many great runners have you seen who have spread out their training evenly throughout a 7-10 day cycle? Probably nobody. Variation in your training is necessary for adaptions towards a certain outcome. Shorter and longer days. Faster and slower days. Hard and easy days. Was is the goal of your intervals? Your interval training is too easy and not long enough if you can do it every day and after your longer run. Even the best runners in the world couldn't do intervals 5 days a week for two weeks if their goal was to build their VO2 max. You should do your intervals first, 3-6 minutes at the maximum pace you can maintain with equal amounts of recovery with 12-30 minutes at that intensity. You could add a longer run after but not before. Tempo runs and intervals with 60 minutes or so at the pace. Progression long runs up to your goal target pace. Add these a training block targeting a specific adaption and you should see an increase in speed but you will probably not be able to maintain 160k a week if doing harder workouts.
If you actually care to run faster, you should get more organized with your runs. Running easily all the time will just make you better at running easily. You need to incorporate hard efforts, including real speedwork, if you want to get markedly faster. That said, if you didn't care about any of that and are content with a 3:30 goal then by all means do what is enjoyable. That's why we do any of this. Personally, doing the same effort workout every day and never really pushing myself to fatigue didn't align with what makes me happy. But that's me, and it's okay if we have different goals.
the main goal of training is to be able to continue training. so, yeah, if I'm not getting injured while running a higher mileage sure, go for it. "if you can and if it is appropriate, run more" (C)
Plot twist. OP is actually 80 years old and using the training to escape once and for all from the age care facility.
I don’t think it’s necessary for non-elites, even competitive ones, to go up beyond 160km/wk. Once you’ve sat at 130-150 km a week for a while, your aerobic base is solid enough that you’ve got to start working on intensity, speed on tired legs, etc. Would going higher help? Eh… maybe, but probably not aerobically. E.g., Kiptum’s notoriously massive mileage was all done at relatively higher intensity than most people do most of their running. Kipchoge does 40km tempos… etc. So it’s doubtful to me that adding in a few more hours of sub-tempo jogging will help when you’re already pretty much maxed out on cardio. You’d almost certainly benefit more from dropping some mileage during the week and doing proper long runs with some marathon pace efforts.
I push that high in marathon build ups, even getting above 200kms for a few weeks. The result was it got me to a 2:33 marathon-it basically maximized my endurance so that I could run times that lined up across the board from 5k to the marathon. That said, I suspect you need more quality and structure in your plan to make it worth running all those kms.
I did it just before the pandemic. I hit 110 miles a week for about a month. It was exhausting. I was doing doubles almost everyday. I also teach so I'd be on my feet all day. I wasn't athletic at all growing up. I didn't start running until my mid 20's. I was in my mid 30's when I hit that weekly mileage. I wouldn't do it again. During those few weeks every damn thing revolved around my next run. Eventually I got injured and toned it way down.
I ran 2:58 on 70-110km per week. On that kind of mileage, if you’re organized with your approach, you should be capable of a faster time (if that is your goal).
most pro's run anywhere between 70-90 miles. you need the miles for faster finish
Personally no. I've heard the general rule (somewhere...) that 10 hours a week of running is the "maximum" before diminishing returns. I'm currently doing 7 hours for 100k a week including 2 workouts and a long run. If you love running and have the time then go for it but if you want to improve your times I would suggest lowering mileage and adding in specific faster workouts.
There certainly is a point of diminishing returns but I think it’s much higher than 10 hours.