That looks like a great plan to me! I was initially looking at the base building trainings but they were either too easy, or too focused on speed work than I was looking for. Thanks again for taking the time to help out!
Yea, I too struggled to find something easily accessible, the right length of time, but also wasn't too focused on speed work since that's not really your intent. I think this string of plans will fit those needs.
Any other suggestions? I've been working on foam rolling and stretching to help with recovery, but as you noted I'm pretty new to this. I picked up Anatomy for Runners, 80/20, and a few other books recommended earlier which has been filling in a lot of gaps for me, but it often feels like drinking out of a firehose with all of the contradictory information out there.
Here are five suggestions:
-
Train slow to race fast. Your goal isn't necessarily to race fast, but the concept of training slow will still be beneficial. And you may find like many others that running becomes more enjoyable at these slower paces. I would say this is a fairly non-controversial topic. Although some authors are better at explaining or describing this concept than others. Over the years I've learned through experience and research that when left on their own accord most will train too fast despite feeling like the training is "easy enough". But after properly be taught what easy should truly feel like, many find a better understanding of that effort level.
-
Consistency is king. No one run is any more important than any other. So in my mind the 20 miler and the 4 mile weekday run are equally important. The real meaning is that the training plan should be taken as a whole and a sum of its parts rather than each individual workout at its relative importance. A successful 20 mile training run happens because of the 4 mile weekday run. And without the 4 mile weekday run, you're only hurting your progress towards your final race day goal. So be just as diligent about doing the little things as you are with doing the big things.
-
Train where you are and not where you want to be. There is some slight disagreement on this topic. There are some that suggest that in order to get better you should train slightly faster than you're currently capable of. Whereas others suggest that you should train where you are currently and not necessarily where you want to be. I fall on the side of where you are currently. But there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the topic. I take a physiological approach and argue that training where you are may slow improvement, but it will mitigate the risk in the long term.
These last two are where you'll see the most contradictory information:
-
Consider balance in training AND Worry about relative current fitness pacing and duration, not miles. These two go hand and hand, but are slightly different. For many, the training from 5k through HM doesn't typically require training beyond 2.5 to 3 hrs in a single bout of exercise. But when people start to prepare for a marathon is when the general recreational runner will encounter the possibility of training runs beyond 2.5-3 hrs. And that typically comes in the form of a 20 mile training run.
So the question is, who is right? Those on the side of multiple 20 mile training runs, or those on the side of doing less and balancing out the training? The answer is probably a little of both. A you can reach a goal by taking either of two different paths. I'd categorize the idea of multiple 20 mile training runs as old school and the idea of more balance as new school. So why is 20 miles a common marathon training run max distance? The core of my literature research seems to suggest that it's because "humans like round numbers or arbitrary thresholds" and "the average marathon time back in the 70s/80s was much faster than it is today".
Is a 19 mile training run really that different physically than a 20 mile training run? Probably not a ton. So the gains are probably going to be more mental than anything. But as we continue to run further and further in training our form starts to deteriorate. And that's where we start to question whether the gains made are being outweighed by the risks of continuing.
More people are participating in racing in the 2020s than in the 1970s. But the same number of elite/sub-elites are still participating. So the average finish time is slowed down because of the introduction of more and more runners. When the elite/sub-elite do a 20, 22, or 24 mile training run, they're doing it in 2.5 hours or less. So the question is, do us recreational runners also do 20, 22, or 24 mile training runs, or do we follow the duration of the exercise instead focusing on the 2.5-3 hr range as a cutoff based on a relative "long run effort pace". Is it even physically possible to train for "only" 12 miles and still complete a distance of 26.2 miles on race day?
From my experience in training others, I feel quite confident that this new age style of thinking where the focus should be on time rather than distance works for most recreational runners. I say most, because from time to time I do come across those that buck that trend and do better with the increased distance. But for most, I can get them close to their racing calculator conversion on less (sometimes as little as 10-12 miles if that is there 2.5 hr threshold). But despite me being someone who views 2.5-3 hrs as a good limit and a believer in the diminishing returns in more, I have yet to find an actual research based study that shows this through physiological changes. The best I can find is data through epidemiological data sets where we're looking at trends. But through the epidemiological data, we do see that those with balance in training tend to do better as converters than those who do not. And that's from those in the sub-3 pace group and those in the sub-6 pace group. The idea of balance seems to apply to the entire pace spectrum.
One thing I learned back in 2015 was "running can be as simple as you want it to be, or as complex". It can be tie your shoes on and go run. Or it can be a combination of physiology, mathematics, mental perception of effort influences, etc.
Are there other topics of contradictory information you're coming across?