Is Marathon Pace actually useful in training?

Having a good running economy is very important for a runner.

It is well known that you improve your running economy at that pace you train.

Therefore training at/around MP, improves running economy at/around that pace. And this is of course good.

OozmaKappa wrote:

As you mention, the mental aspect is important. You have to get to know that pace well enough to be able to hit it like a metronome without thinking. So you should incorporate it into your training.

I think there is such a thing as getting good at running a particular pace. That is, with enough practice running at a certain pace you optimize your running economy at that pace.

I agree with this! In Marathoner in Training, we specifically practice locking in at MP by "feel" and not by watch as much in some cases, so that we aren't dead-set on a pace. Due to the heat and cool changes, it's hard nail a specific time, but as it gets cooler the pace comes into better view and when we run the marathon we'll have a clearer idea of what we need.

Trying to establish MP in the summer is a guessing game but September is a good time to lock it in and learn it by feel.

Either the OP made this post to generate content for his web job or the author of the web piece needs to learn how to do journalism, including what plagiarism and ethics are.

https://runningmagazine.ca/sections/training/is-marathon-pace-actually-useful-for-training/

On top of which, the piece is garbage:

"Physically, there is no benefit to training at this pace [MP] besides improving your aerobic endurance. This could also be done with a slower-paced training run."

Bold claim...and yet it's completely supported by...any evidence, examples, expertise.

"Two or three workouts a week at MP is not beneficial unless you are doing a high volume of reps (30x400m at goal marathon pace with less than one-minute rest)."

Uh, what?

And then:

"The best way to train your mental muscle is by simulating a race environment in your training. To get to this stage in your training you have to implement MP in your long runs or as a workout each week, as mileage can be taxing without the proper training."

Yes....mileage can be taxing without the proper training. So can writing.

A physiology professor in Norway shared his thoughts about the long run in a Norwegian podcast "I det lange løp". He answered questions about the long run and gave interesting insights. All he said is not necessarily proven, but I certainly assume he builds this on the science and knowledge he has. He is also a running coach since many years.

Some statements:

Racing 30min and less, he thinks a 75min long run is enough. That will touch enough on the effect of depleting slow twitch and enabling reserves to increase endurance. If you race longer he thought long runs of race time + 15min was fine. Maybe 30min racing is a breaking point. Jakob has a 75min "long run" and no more and he runs well also on 10k road.

Marathon times have dropped due to the use of more specific MP-paced training. He thinks for M this has been important. It can be natural that also specifically paced training works for M as well as shorter races.

Overtraining is mainly caused by long term depletion of glukogen storages, meaning filling those up is the main task in recovery. So eating right right after the workout is key.

In general there is NO single optimal training pace. There are a spectre of paces/intensities that give somewhat different combos of adaptations. Aerobic qualities are trained at almost all paces. So moderate running is different than easy paced, but still highly aerobic. If you want a lot of milage, running too much moderate will not work since the load is high and in that case I would maybe go to a more polarized method of easy+faster. If the milage is lower, I would run the slower milage as fast as I can and still recover and be fresh for the workouts (but I would also use a pure recovery pace sometimes as well)

Does Jakob really only do 75min long runs? I find that amazing if true.

Yeah - total garbage article

fwiw, I'm no author and posted the original question out of genuine curiosity. I appreciate these helpful posts on this thread - obviously a nuanced topic.

I saw that piece too and was scratching my head on how an editor let that pass

aaahno wrote:

Does Jakob really only do 75min long runs? I find that amazing if true.

20-25km long runs are pretty standard for 1500/5000m guys. There is no need for 2 hour runs and those runs can hurt your ability to actually go out and do the training you need to do.

Training at MP is a waste of time.You don`t need it .

lexel wrote:

Having a good running economy is very important for a runner.

It is well known that you improve your running economy at that pace you train.

Therefore training at/around MP, improves running economy at/around that pace. And this is of course good.

It improves economy at faster pace running in general and is a faster pace you can eventually spend a lot of time in, therefore reap some sweet gains.

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

Training at MP is a waste of time.You don`t need it .

What pace do your 5k-marathon athletes do tempo runs at? Are they not needed as well?

LOL Canadian Running Magazine frequently goes on LRC to get content. Sometimes, they're very open and directly ask for feedback/comments.

From reading this and other similar threads and my own experience/view, it's fairly simple.

If you're training at elite levels (e.g. 100+ MPW, 12+ Hours), then your body will treat 20-mile workouts completely differently than how you would if running at half of that volume. In this context, volume and frequency of stimulus are already maxed-out. The best way to make more marginal gains is to dial in specificity of training.

This, combined with the body's high volume adapted state, allows the athlete to absorb the incremental gains from a maxed-out volume/frequency/specificity regimen block after block, which is the fundamentals of Canova's approach.

Here, under-trained athletes simply do not have the adapted basis to benefit from a 20-mile workout at MP. Such a runner would be running a workout at 30-50% of total weekly volume, basically performing a B-Race as opposed to truly training for incremental gains with manageable recovery. Sure, one would gain fitness in this context—any major stimulus would—but not relatively more than consistently running at a higher volume/frequency.

In short, when it comes to the relative order of importance in running stimulus-response, it is:

#1. Volume

#2. Frequency

#3. Specificity

Talk to Ya'll Later

CokeOverBeer wrote:

If you're training at elite levels (e.g. 100+ MPW, 12+ Hours), then your body will treat 20-mile workouts completely differently than how you would if running at half of that volume. I

Here, under-trained athletes simply do not have the adapted basis to benefit from a 20-mile workout at MP. Such a runner would be running a workout at 30-50% of total weekly volume, basically performing a B-Race as opposed to truly training for incremental gains with manageable recovery.

This.

The guy suggesting 20 miles @ goal MP 4-5 weeks post a few other gems in this thread that should also be completely ignored.

aaahno wrote:

Does Jakob really only do 75min long runs? I find that amazing if true.

I heard father Gjert confirm their long run was 20k, recently. The pace is a secret, but probably not slower than 75min

August West wrote:

CokeOverBeer wrote:

If you're training at elite levels (e.g. 100+ MPW, 12+ Hours), then your body will treat 20-mile workouts completely differently than how you would if running at half of that volume. I

Here, under-trained athletes simply do not have the adapted basis to benefit from a 20-mile workout at MP. Such a runner would be running a workout at 30-50% of total weekly volume, basically performing a B-Race as opposed to truly training for incremental gains with manageable recovery.

This.

The guy suggesting 20 miles @ goal MP 4-5 weeks post a few other gems in this thread that should also be completely ignored.

If you think I disagree with this guy, then you didn't actually read what I wrote.

800 dude wrote:

If you think I disagree with this guy, then you didn't actually read what I wrote.

I wasn't referring to you. I have read most of what you've written in this thread and while I don't agree with some of it, it's well thought out. The other person, not so much.

If you're advocating 20 miles at marathon pace, you're not really agreeing with CokeOverBeer though unless you happen to be be putting in 100mpw. I'm running a little more than half of that, and there's no way in hell I'd completely recover from that workout in 4 weeks. My thought is that most wouldn't.

August West wrote:

800 dude wrote:

If you think I disagree with this guy, then you didn't actually read what I wrote.

I wasn't referring to you. I have read most of what you've written in this thread and while I don't agree with some of it, it's well thought out. The other person, not so much.

If you're advocating 20 miles at marathon pace, you're not really agreeing with CokeOverBeer though unless you happen to be be putting in 100mpw. I'm running a little more than half of that, and there's no way in hell I'd completely recover from that workout in 4 weeks. My thought is that most wouldn't.

Ah, apologies for jumping on you. I'm not really "advocating" 20 @ MP. Just saying that it isn't necessarily crazy and that it can make sense for some athletes. And, yes, I agree that high mileage is an absolute necessity if you're going to do stuff like that. I have only VERY rarely prescribed a workout like that for an athlete I coached.

800 dude wrote:

Ah, apologies for jumping on you. I'm not really "advocating" 20 @ MP. Just saying that it isn't necessarily crazy and that it can make sense for some athletes. And, yes, I agree that high mileage is an absolute necessity if you're going to do stuff like that. I have only VERY rarely prescribed a workout like that for an athlete I coached.

No apology necessary. I should have been less passive aggressive and just called the person out by name. I'm too lazy to go back through to do that now.