Off the top of my head there are 5 main ways you can improve from marathon to marathon:
1) Adjust quality (volume / type / frequency)
2) Increase easy volume (or you can combine 1 and 2 or course)
3) Decrease volume in the hope this addresses previous issues around recovery and / or because the change in quality and / or injury history forces your hand to keep the runner healthy.
4) Do the same everything and trust that gradual improvement continues before old age and the spouse’s nagging kicks in.
5) Keep everything the same but improve all the non-running stuff (sleep / diet / weight / fuelling / lifestyle changes / alcohol / pace smarter).
Shady_Ady has run 15 marathons in the past suggesting a significant running history and still doesn’t have a particularly good conversion from his shorter times. His shorter times suggest 3:30 won’t happen (given his conversion) unless he gets quicker which is why Sam very sensibly starts off with a 3:36 ballpark looking to adjust if he gets the shorter distance results in which case 3:30 becomes a possibility.
So the obvious questions are:
- What does Sam see as Shady’s major weakness/ areas that needs to be addressed in this schedule to improve on his previous times.
- Which of 1 thru 4 above is the ‘strategy’ for improvement? (We’ll take 5 as given!).
- How does this training plan address that area of improvement compared to his previous marathon attempts?
- What did Shady’s PB campaign look like in terms of 20 milers and overall mileage? If Shady was stuck on 3:50 on one or two 20 milers and introduced 5 when he PB’d it would be madness to go back to one or two – but if the opposite happened it would make a lot more sense!
In my opinion the above information would provide much needed context behind the overall direction of the plan which would help frame the discussions.
With regards to the number of 20 milers.....I declare my hand in the ‘more is better camp’. Having just 1 or 2 20+ milers seems like ticking a box more than anything (“erm we’re missing a fartlek, kenyan hills, a set of 400s and a long run, where shall we put them?”). If one believes in their value why would one only do one? Is it because after one run the benefits are now in the area of diminishing returns? How will you measure diminishing returns if you only do 1 or 2? How will you measure whether the desired fitness / psychological impact of one run has occured without doing another? If 20 milers aren’t really necessary why do any at all?
Of course, 20 milers can really unbalance a week. We talk about injury prevention but a good way of introducing risk is doing more than 50% of your weekly volume in just one run – it creates an unbalanced schedule. So, perhaps that’s the answer.....
.....you believe in decent mileage and 20 milers or you believe in neither!
Edited: 20/12/2012 at 12:13