Back to the dream (potential nightmare) of the Valencia Marathon in 2025. I am still trying to get ducks lined up on marathon training principles. I will share some thoughts here.

Elite Marathon Training

Textbook marathon training is highly structured with a high weekly run volume focusing on building aerobic capacity, muscular endurance, and race-specific speed. The approach varies depending on the coach, but in general, the elites follow periodized training cycles that involve phases of high mileage, specific intensity work, and tapering.

Taking three prominent coaches—Steve Magness, Renato Canova, and Arthur Lydiard as examples. All of whom developed distinct approaches to marathon training. Each offers a unique philosophy, though they share commonalities in certain areas such as the importance of long runs and the gradual buildup of intensity.

Steve Magness

Steve Magness blends modern sports science with traditional endurance principles. His approach emphasizes adaptive stress and individualization. Magness’ plans typically involve high mileage in the base phase with a focus on varied workouts such as rhythm runs and tempo sessions. He introduces hill work, tempo intervals, and long runs with progressive intensity as race day approaches. His philosophy is rooted in adaptability and efficiency, and his workouts often center around building aerobic capacity while managing fatigue.

Renato Canova

Renato Canova is known for his specificity-driven training philosophy. Canova's training is highly focused on long runs that replicate marathon demands through the use of alternating intensities and sustained sections at marathon pace. His training structure emphasizes long runs of up to 35-40 kilometers, with significant portions run at or near race pace. Canova believes that teaching the body to handle marathon-specific fatigue and developing fuel efficiency is critical for marathon success.

Arthur Lydiard

Arthur Lydiard, one of the pioneers of long-distance running training, emphasizes the aerobic base-building phase. Lydiard's marathon plans often include high mileage weeks with long, steady-paced runs to develop endurance and aerobic capacity. Note that the term LSD (Long Slow Distance) is often mistakenly attributed to Lydiard, but his philosophy was far from the "easy, conversational" style promoted by Joe Henderson the father of LSD. Lydiard’s emphasis on higher-intensity aerobic training was more structured and performance-oriented. It was designed for serious athletes aiming to peak for races, whereas LSD was more recreationally focused. The aim was to maximize aerobic development while staying just below the intensity at which lactate accumulation begins. Lydiard believed that running at this intensity optimized mitochondrial development, capillarization, and endurance without pushing the body into anaerobic training, which he reserved for later phases where the focus became interval training with a single maintenance long run.

Similarities and Differences

All three coaches—Magness, Canova, and Lydiard—recognize the importance of the long run and the necessity of periodization in marathon training. Each of them also emphasizes aerobic development early in the training cycle, but they diverge in how they approach intensity, specificity, and the structure of long runs.

While Magness and Lydiard focus heavily on aerobic base building, Canova introduces marathon-specific work earlier. Magness uses individualized pacing strategies and integrates scientific feedback to adjust workouts. Lydiard sticks to more traditional, volume-heavy training. Canova, on the other hand, emphasizes the specificity of training and teaches athletes to run long distances at race pace or near it. The intensity and race-pace segments make Canova's plans more demanding in the marathon-specific phase.

Adaptations for the Weekend Warrior

Distance or Duration?

For recreational athletes, using distance as the primary metric for training can create problems because the time spent running a set distance. Obviously 30-35 kilometers takes much longer for us than for elite runners. While elite runners can complete these distances in under two hours, non-elite runners could spend 3-4 hours on their feet trying to hit the same distance, leading to excessive fatigue and risk of injury.

A more effective approach is adjusting weekly kilometers based on the athlete’s ability and using duration as a guide. A 2:10 elite marathoner might peak at over 160 kilometers per week, while a 3-hour marathoner might benefit from peaking at 100-120 kilometers per week. For recreational runners targeting 3, 3½, or 4-hour marathons, plans should be adjusted to cap the longest run.

Using duration instead of distance ensures that recreational runners receive the same physiological benefits without the unnecessary strain of running for too long. For example, instead of prescribing a 35 km long run, a recreational athlete might be better served by running for 2 to 2.5 hours. Time at the correct intensity is the key, chasing kilometers is not!

The Problem with the Long Run

For non-elite marathoners, long runs present a particular challenge. In shorter-distance training for events like the 5K, 10K, and even half marathon, non-elite runners can more closely match the race-specific requirements of the distance in training. However, for the 42.2 km marathon, the specificity of the long run becomes an impossible task.

Here is the central problem, specificity is key to optimal training and yet slower runners can not get close to the specificity of the marathon distance in training. While elite runners can handle long runs of 30-35 km with minimal fatigue, non-elites can not! The excessive time on feet increases the risk of injury and impairs recovery. For most non-elites, the benefit of a long run begins to taper off after 2 hours or even less.

As an example, a 2:19 marathoner (we’ll come back to him later) that is regularly doing 2 hour easy runs means that this “time on feet” is 86% of his target time. Whereas a 4 hour marathoner would need to run for almost three and a half hours to have the same level of specificity. This is neither viable nor beneficial. 

The Power Curve and Pace Decay

Due to this lack of specificity and the duration required the weekend warrior is more impacted by pace decay. Elite runners, with superior endurance, fatigue resistance and an overall shorter race duration, can sustain a higher percentage of their 10K pace in the marathon compared to non-elites.

Elite marathoners typically hold 93-95% of their 10K pace for the marathon, while sub-elites might hold 91-93%, and recreational runners aiming for a 3-hour marathon may hold 88-91%. For slower marathoners, let’s say 4-hour runners, the percentage of 10K pace sustained in the marathon drops further, to around 85-88%.

There are lots of reasons you might wish to do a marathon but if yours falls within even the broadest definition of “running a good race” then there must be a limit to how much pace decay is acceptable to you. I’ll let you put your own number to it, but personally I wouldn’t toe the start line unless my 10k critical power is at a level where I can assume a reasonable chance of a good race.

Doing lots of slow easy running is good for your Zen and may flatten out the far right side of the curve. But unless you work on raising the left side there will always be a finite limit on how fast you can complete a distance. It is therefore critical that you work on developing the left-side of the curve before the marathon specific training starts and then ensuring that you maintain it during.

You shouldn’t expect to get off the couch, do a marathon training plan and have an exceptional race. The elites and sub-elites have honed their speed/speed endurance in training and at shorter race distances before moving up to the marathon distance.

I’d still expect a fast miler to run a good marathon time. Sure her pace decay wouldn’t be optimal but they have a large enough speed reserve that they'd beat you anyway. If you never run fast, you'll never run fast.

Interpreting Strava Feeds

Matt Fox, founder of Sweat Elite ran the Chicago marathon last week in 2:19:30. His Strava feed is public and provides a day by day account of his training.

Let’s go back to Sunday the 30th of September three weeks before the race. This was a rest day after his peak week of 173 kilometers. If you look at the previous week’s workouts, the distances and paces seem incredible. That said, we need to remind ourselves that a 2:19 marathoner has an easy run pace of 3:48 to 4:12 /km. A marathon pace of 3:18/km. A half-marathon pace of 3:09/km, a 5k pace of 2:54/km and a 1600m rep pace of 2:39/km!

So if I take those 7 days and instead of putting his kilometers and pace I convert them into duration and his target intensity it looks like this:

Any which way you slice it, that is a massive seven days, but converting it into duration and target intensity goes a long way to make it relevant to the “normal athlete”. With some individual tailoring of the duration it even becomes feasible.

Running With Power

I run with a STRYD power meter and three things become very obvious:

1. The significant metabolic cost of hills (and even other environmental factors). Trying to run at an even pace race is rarely the best pacing strategy. While pace fluctuates due to environmental conditions, power remains constant, allowing runners to maintain an optimal energy output and avoid burning out on hills or slowing too much on downhills.

2. Pacing a race with power leads to more efficient energy use and better race performance. Runners can pace themselves based on how much power they can sustain rather than focusing on arbitrary metrics; an average target pace or heart rate.

3. That weight matters. Here is a table showing the expected power-to-weight ratio of runners at different performance standards:

Plan your Work and Work your Plan

There is still plenty to learn before this gets real sometime mid 2025. Marathon training for both elite and non-elite runners presents unique challenges, but the principles seem to remain consistent—build aerobic capacity, manage fatigue, and train specifically for the demands of the race. 

While elites can sustain paces closer to their critical power and handle long runs with relative ease, recreational runners must adapt by using duration-based training, adjusting weekly mileage, and being mindful of power/pace decay. Understanding the differences between elite and non-elite athletes, and how this translates to training, should help me set realistic goals and avoid injury. 

Ultimately, successful marathon training comes down to balancing effort, recovery, and specificity, all while tailoring the plan to fit individual abilities and race goals. Whether you’re aiming for a competitive race or your first marathon, the key is in planning your training intelligently and adapting the best practices from proven strategies to suit your own needs.