Shownotes

John’s book

07:44 -

• In my book Marathon Excellence, available at marathonexcellence.com and on Amazon, I present a comprehensive and evidence-based guide to modern marathon training and racing.
• It combines practical training plans with high-level training philosophy, detailed race-day strategies, fueling guidelines, and the underlying scientific principles that explain why my recommended methods are effective.
• Drawing on scientific research published as recently as a few months ago, the book integrates advanced training techniques such as heat adaptation, specialized training blocks, and double-threshold sessions. The goal is to provide a complete, up-to-date resource for marathon runners of all levels.
• Compared to the foundational works that once defined endurance training—such as those by Pete Pfitzinger and Jack Daniels—Marathon Excellence offers a more current and wide-ranging perspective, reflecting the evolution of both sports science and training methodology in the modern era.

Key principles of marathon training

09:37 -

• In Marathon Excellence, I outline five key principles that define effective marathon preparation and performance.
• First, marathon fitness—like any form of fitness—has distinct physiological foundations. Core elements such as VO₂ max and running economy play a crucial role, but exceptional lab results alone do not guarantee a strong marathon performance.
• Training must be designed to develop and integrate these physiological systems in a way that translates directly to racing.
• Second, training specificity is essential. To perform well in the marathon, one must train at intensities that mirror the race’s demands—primarily long, sustained efforts near marathon pace. Just as in any sport, the training must reflect the exact requirements of the event.
• Third, I believe that every speed has value. Unlike traditional approaches that emphasize limited pace ranges—such as “easy” base miles or strict marathon pace work—I advocate for using the full spectrum of speeds throughout the training cycle.
• Periodization, in my view, is about adjusting the relative emphasis of these speeds as the season progresses rather than excluding them altogether.
• Fourth, progress depends on the balance between stress and recovery. Improvements arise from applying meaningful training stress—such as long, fast workouts near marathon pace—followed by sufficient recovery to allow adaptation. Training hard without adequate rest disrupts this process.
• Finally, successful marathons require deliberate planning. Strong performances do not happen by chance; they result from well-structured training, precise pacing strategies, optimized fueling, and a clear mental approach.
• Whether the goal is to break three hours or compete professionally, athletes who perform at their best always have a comprehensive plan. These five principles form the foundation of the approach presented in my book.

Periodization when preparing a marathon

12:48 -

• There are two complementary ways to understand periodization in marathon training, both leading to the same outcome.
• The first approach begins with the physiological foundations of performance. Marathon ability can be viewed as a combination of four key components: VO₂ max, running economy, steady-state maximum (often associated with lactate threshold or critical speed), and physiological resilience.
• The steady-state maximum—sometimes referred to as LT2, maximal lactate steady state, or critical speed—represents the highest sustainable effort an athlete can maintain over time.
• While a high VO₂ max is advantageous, the best marathoners in the world are distinguished not by their absolute VO₂ max values but by the exceptionally high percentage of VO₂ max they can sustain throughout the race.
• Physiological resilience, the fourth component, reflects how well an athlete can maintain performance under fatigue. It measures the degree to which key physiological parameters like VO₂ max and running economy deteriorate—or remain stable—after 30 to 35 kilometers of running.
• Using this perspective, periodization begins by developing these physiological systems in a general training phase. Once that foundation is established, training progresses toward specific preparation, addressing the unique demands of running 42 kilometers at the highest sustainable pace through long, fast workouts near marathon intensity.
• The second approach to periodization starts by working backward from the goal. If the objective is to complete a marathon as fast as possible, the final preparation must include highly specific workouts, such as 32 kilometers at 90–95% of marathon pace or alternating kilometers at slightly above and below race pace.
• Since an athlete cannot begin with these demanding sessions, earlier training phases must be designed to build the capacity to handle them.
• This backward progression creates a logical structure: first developing general fitness through a wide range of intensities—from easy endurance work to faster running around 5K pace—then progressing to marathon-supportive training at 90–110% of marathon pace, and finally refining performance with marathon-specific work concentrated between 95–105% of marathon pace.
• Both frameworks—whether starting from physiological science or from the practical demands of racing—converge on the same principle: effective marathon preparation requires a gradual, structured progression from general conditioning to highly specific race readiness, targeting each physiological system with the appropriate training stimulus at the right time.

Running pace percentages

19:14 -

• A useful way to visualize training intensity as a percentage of marathon pace is to think in terms of how each 5% increase roughly halves the distance that can be sustained.
• If marathon pace represents 100%, then about 105% corresponds to half marathon pace, 110% to 10K pace, and 112–115% to 5K pace—though the exact values vary between individuals. The same logic can be applied in reverse for intensities below marathon pace.
• To make these calculations more accessible, I developed a free online pace percentage calculator, available through a simple web search. The book also includes a reference chart to help athletes translate these percentages into practical training speeds without needing manual calculations.
• In practice, this framework means that during the early training phase, athletes work across a broad range of intensities—from very easy endurance running to high-intensity efforts exceeding 110% of marathon pace, which primarily target VO₂ max development.
• The supportive phase focuses more on the “heavy domain” of training, emphasizing work around 90–110% of marathon pace to strengthen both aerobic power and fatigue resistance.
• Finally, in the specific phase, the emphasis narrows to efforts close to race pace, typically between 95–105%, to fine-tune the precise physiological and mechanical demands of the marathon.
• This approach draws significant influence from the Italian school of marathon training, particularly from the methods of Renato Canova and other renowned Italian coaches such as those who guided Olympic champions Gelindo Bordin and Stefano Baldini.
• While Marathon Excellence is not intended to replicate Canova’s exact methodology, it shares many of the same underlying principles of progressive, pace-based periodization. I was honored that Renato Canova kindly provided an endorsement for the book, acknowledging the scientific and practical depth of its approach.

Specific workouts for the different intensities

22:13 -

• When I design marathon training plans, I always begin by working backward from race day, structuring each phase in reverse so that every session builds logically toward the most specific workouts and, ultimately, peak performance.
• For example, let’s say the marathon is 18 weeks away. The last one and a half to two weeks will serve as the taper, allowing the athlete to recover and consolidate fitness. Before that, I identify the two or three most important workouts that will define readiness for race day.
• For someone running between 100 and 110 kilometers per week, these key sessions might include a 30–32 km run at 95% of marathon pace roughly one month out, followed by, three weeks before the race, a 5 x 4 km session at marathon pace with 1 km “float” recoveries at 85–90% of marathon pace.
• If the athlete’s target pace is, for example, 4:00 per kilometer, then 95% effort would correspond to approximately 4:12 per kilometer. Being able to complete the 32 km long run at that pace, followed by successfully executing the 4 km/1 km workout with precise pacing and good recovery, provides strong confirmation that the athlete is well-prepared to sustain 4:00/km during the marathon itself.
• Working backward from these cornerstone workouts, the training plan gradually reduces distance and intensity to build toward these efforts.
• For instance, two weeks earlier the athlete might complete a 28–29 km run at the same intensity, preceded by sessions such as 25 km divided into 5 km blocks progressing from 90% to 95% of marathon pace, or 25 km steady at 90% earlier in the build-up.
• A similar backward structure applies to the 4 km/1 km session. Before reaching full volume, the athlete might progress through 3 km/1 km, then 2 km/1 km, and initially 1 km at marathon pace alternating with 1 km at 85–90%. This gradual progression allows adaptation to both the volume and intensity required in the final phase.
• Earlier in the cycle, training also includes efforts at 105–110% of marathon pace to develop aerobic power, together with easy endurance runs and progression runs for aerobic efficiency and resilience.
• Weekly training during this early stage remains balanced, with moderate, non-exhaustive sessions such as progression runs, hill long runs, and controlled threshold workouts (e.g., 7 x 3 minutes at 90% of 5K pace).
• As the plan advances, the structure becomes more modulated, a concept inspired by Renato Canova’s Italian methodology. Instead of maintaining three moderate sessions per week, training shifts toward two larger workouts separated by longer recovery periods—creating bigger stress and bigger recovery.
• This middle phase, often called the marathon-supportive block, emphasizes efforts between 90–110% of marathon pace, occasionally extending to 95–105%, ensuring the athlete develops both endurance and speed endurance.
• The focus is not on rigidly training at fixed intensities, but rather on modulating the emphasis—using the full spectrum of paces while progressively aligning them with the physiological and tactical demands of marathon performance.

Work above marathon race pace

27:27 -

• In my training philosophy, I combine both approaches to intensity distribution within marathon preparation. Some workouts blend multiple effort levels—for example, alternating 2 km at 108% of marathon pace with 1 km at 112%, mixing elements of 10K and 5K pace work.
• This integrates speed from earlier training phases into the marathon build-up. In other cases, I maintain full workouts at a single, specific intensity but schedule them less frequently.
• As the program evolves from the general to the supportive phase, high-intensity sessions shift from occurring every 7–10 days to once every 20 days or so. This progression reflects a gradual refinement of training focus while still maintaining contact with all key intensity zones.
• This balance is essential because, as training becomes more marathon-specific, the athlete naturally spends less time working on the broad physiological foundation.
• That trade-off—between specificity and general fitness—is the reason periodization exists. I often use the metaphor of a cliff extending from a mountain: the mountain represents your base fitness, while the cliff is your specific fitness.
• The higher and wider your base, the further your specific performance can extend before collapsing. But if you go too far without rebuilding the base, you risk falling off the edge.
• This principle underpins the five training plans in my book—Breeze, Wind, Gale, Tornado, and Hurricane—each structured around different mileage levels and athlete experience.
• The lower-volume plans have longer general phases and shorter specific phases, while the higher-mileage plans, designed for advanced runners, allow for longer marathon-supportive and specific blocks. More experienced athletes can sustain specific work for extended periods because their foundational fitness is more robust.
• This concept also aligns with what we see in other endurance sports. In triathlon, for example, athletes who perform many race-pace efforts over long durations often become slower overall unless they have an exceptionally strong base.
• Professional athletes, by contrast, can thrive on highly specific training because they are near their genetic ceiling for key physiological variables—VO₂ max, threshold power, and running economy—and can handle the associated demands.
• From a physiological standpoint, improvements in durability and resilience yield greater performance benefits when absolute fitness levels are already high.
• In other words, every 1% gain in how close an athlete can sustain effort relative to their steady-state maximum becomes more impactful when VO₂ max and running economy are already strong. 
• That’s why the higher-mileage plans in Marathon Excellence emphasize more specific training, while lower-mileage runners focus proportionally more on developing these fundamental systems.
• Another key idea I emphasize is that, for the marathon, what most people consider “speed” actually forms the base.
• Marathon training begins with developing faster paces and gradually extends them to longer durations—the inverse of traditional base training used for middle-distance events.
• Historically, the concept of base training originated from athletes like Arthur Lydiard’s middle-distance runners, whose events (800 m to 5,000 m) required extensive aerobic volume followed by specific speed work. For the marathon, the model must be reversed: start from faster, shorter work and extend that speed to longer efforts.
• This shift in philosophy reflects how marathon performance has evolved. In the 1960s, runners like Peter Snell could post world-class 800 m times on grass, yet marathon performances of that era were significantly slower than elite women’s times today.
• The modern approach—focusing on speed development first, then extending it—has led to a convergence between 10K and marathon performances, with today’s marathoners running faster than ever relative to their short-distance ability.
• That transformation is exactly what I aim to promote in Marathon Excellence: a modern, evidence-based framework that treats the marathon not merely as a test of endurance, but as a race that can—and should—be systematically trained for through intelligent, progressive design.

Marathon training time

36:15 -

• When designing the training plans in Marathon Excellence, I wanted them to be interconnected, forming a structured progression rather than a collection of unrelated templates.
• My goal was to create a system where each plan builds upon the previous one, allowing athletes to grow in both fitness and experience over multiple marathon cycles. At the same time, I wanted to avoid simply doubling the workload from one level to the next—scaling a 50-mile-per-week plan into a 100-mile-per-week version would be overly simplistic and ineffective.
• Instead, each plan is scaled intelligently, reflecting not only volume but also the complexity and density of workouts appropriate for that training level.
• Each plan is available in two formats: an 18-week flagship version and a 12-week compressed version. I generally recommend the 18-week schedule, as it allows for more gradual progression and better adaptation, but I understand that many runners have limited time to prepare.
• Both versions share the same structure and principles—the 12-week plan simply condenses the timeline without compromising the underlying methodology.
• Within every plan, I included a low-end and high-end mileage option to suit different ability levels and life circumstances. For example, the Breeze plan, which is the entry-level program, peaks at either 40 or 50 miles per week (approximately 65 to 80 kilometers).
• Runners can begin at the lower mileage, complete the cycle, and then repeat the same plan later at the higher volume once they’ve adapted. This progressive structure enables athletes to build sustainable capacity over time rather than forcing premature jumps in mileage.
• The sequence of plans continues upward:
  • Wind: 55–65 miles per week
  • Gale: 70–80 miles per week
  • Tornado: 85–90 miles per week
  • Hurricane: 110–120 miles per week
• This represents roughly a three-fold range in total training volume, accommodating runners from beginners to advanced athletes. Naturally, higher mileage generally correlates with greater aerobic development, but only when it is performed safely and consistently.
• The most important principle is that the right mileage is the one you can complete successfully—without injury, excessive fatigue, or mental burnout.
• That number should evolve over time. Many runners tend to overestimate what they can handle in the short term and underestimate their long-term potential.
• My intent with these plans is to guide athletes through that process of gradual, intelligent progression—so they can continue improving across multiple marathon cycles, year after year, in a sustainable and rewarding way.

Run mileage progression

38:59 -

• When it comes to building up mileage and determining how long to maintain peak volume, my approach is based both on research and on practical experience with athletes.
• Traditional ideas such as the “10% rule” — the notion that you should increase mileage by no more than ten percent per week — are not strongly supported by scientific evidence.
• What research does show, however, is that injury risk is closely linked to sudden spikes in either total mileage or the length of individual runs. This is why consistency and gradual progression are far more important than adhering to an arbitrary percentage.
• The structure I generally recommend is a three-weeks-up, one-week-down pattern. That means increasing total weekly mileage for three consecutive weeks, followed by a slight reduction on the fourth week to allow for recovery and adaptation.
• This cycle repeats until the athlete reaches their peak mileage, typically during the marathon-supportive phase, which precedes the final race-specific block.
• One of the key distinctions in my methodology is that I do not recommend maintaining peak mileage during the most marathon-specific phase. At that point in the cycle, the focus should shift from accumulating volume to executing the most demanding, race-specific workouts effectively.
• Mileage is valuable during general and supportive training because it develops the structural and aerobic foundation required for long, fast sessions. Once that foundation is in place, quality outweighs quantity.
• In practical terms, this means avoiding the common mistake of combining peak mileage, multiple hard workouts, and long runs within the same period.
• For example, instead of stacking a 20-mile long run on Saturday, a 14-mile session on Sunday, and another hard interval workout early in the week, I prefer a big stress–big recovery model.
• The athlete might perform a fast long run on Saturday, follow it with an easy 8 km jog on Sunday, take Monday and Tuesday very lightly, and then complete the next key workout midweek.
• This approach ensures that each major workout receives the recovery it deserves, rather than being diluted by excessive fatigue. The most common pitfall I see in self-designed marathon plans is the tendency to “cram” everything into the final four to six weeks — the hardest workouts, the highest mileage, and the most frequency — which often leads to burnout and underperformance on race day.
• In the final phase of marathon training, mileage is no longer the goal; recovery is. The purpose of the earlier training is to enable you to handle those long, fast, specific workouts efficiently.
• Once you reach that point, it’s about executing those sessions with precision, allowing full recovery, and arriving at the start line fresh and physiologically primed to perform your best.

Long run progression

42:28 -

• The ideal long run distance before a marathon depends largely on your weekly mileage and training background. In a perfect scenario—if injury risk were not a concern—the optimal long run would be around 32 to 35 kilometers (20 to 22 miles) at roughly 90 to 95% of marathon pace, completed about three to four weeks before race day.
• This provides a strong simulation of marathon demands without compromising recovery or increasing injury risk excessively.
• That said, this kind of session should come after a progressive buildup. In the general phase of training, the focus is on long, easy runs to build endurance and structural resilience.
• Only later do we transition to long, fast runs, gradually extending both distance and pace. The key is not to combine new intensity with unfamiliar distances at the same time. You should already be comfortable with running long before you begin running long and fast.
• A sensible progression is to increase long-run distance by about 3 to 4 kilometers (2 to 2.5 miles) at a time. Pushing beyond that can lead to unnecessary fatigue or injury, especially if you are entering uncharted territory in terms of distance.
• For experienced runners already accustomed to 30-kilometer long runs, a step from 25K to 28K to 30K is manageable. However, for those whose previous longest run is around 25K, even an additional 2K can be a meaningful increase.
• I also don’t believe that a long run every weekend is necessary—or even optimal—for most athletes. Many runners benefit from doing a long run every two weeks, and for those with higher mileage or faster recovery rates, every three weeks can be appropriate.
• As fitness improves, recovery becomes quicker, and long runs can be included more frequently.
• Ultimately, the principle is the same as in all training: stress followed by recovery. Each long run should challenge the body just enough to stimulate adaptation without overreaching.
• Controlled, incremental progression ensures that every increase in distance or intensity strengthens performance rather than undermining it.

Weekly structure

44:11 -

• I like to view each workout as part of a connected sequence rather than as an isolated effort. Every session has a purpose within the larger training rhythm, and how it links to what comes before and after is just as important as the session itself.
• For example, the first workout in most of my training plans is a Kenyan-style progression run. It begins very easy, gradually builds toward a strong aerobic effort, and often finishes slightly faster over the final 2 km of a 10 km run.
• This type of workout is controlled, not overly taxing, and allows for a quick recovery—typically followed by just one easy day before returning to more structured training.
• By contrast, if an athlete is following a low-mileage plan and completes their first 15-mile (25 km) long run, even at an easy pace, that represents a much higher stress load.
• In that case, I recommend taking a rest day afterward, followed by a very easy day before resuming structured work. In practice, that sequence becomes: long run → rest → easy run. The idea is that recovery scales with the intensity and duration of the preceding effort.
• This principle ties back to the evolution of intensity distribution across the plans. In the lower-mileage programs, the weekly intensity is fairly even, and recovery is simple—mostly easy runs or one to two rest days per week.
• As runners progress to higher-mileage plans, recovery becomes more sophisticated, often involving micro-cycles such as an easy day followed by an “easy-to-moderate” day.
• For example, a higher-level athlete might do an easy run one day, then a light progression run or add short pickups—say, 10 x 1 minute at 10K pace with 3 minutes easy between efforts—on the next day before a key workout. These subtle progressions maintain aerobic engagement without imposing excessive fatigue.
• When prescribing easy running, I distinguish between three categories—very easy, easy, and moderate—each defined by approximate percentages of an athlete’s 5K pace, rather than marathon pace. This framework aligns better with the physiological systems targeted in general aerobic development.
  • Very Easy: Slower than 50% of 5K pace. For a runner with a 4:00/km 5K pace, that equates to roughly 6:00/km or slower. These runs are purely for recovery and circulation.
  • Easy: Around 55–65% of 5K pace, which for most runners falls well below LT1 (first lactate threshold). Research shows that more than 90% of athletes are below LT1 at or under 65% of their 5K pace, meaning these runs effectively target the intended physiological zone.
  • Moderate: Roughly 65–75% of 5K pace, corresponding to the upper end of LT1 or slightly above. This effort feels steady but controlled—stronger than easy, yet far from race intensity.
• In the lower-mileage plans, moderate running appears mainly as a way to slightly extend or strengthen long easy runs. In the higher-mileage plans, moderate running is integrated more deliberately, often as part of a double-run structure (e.g., an easy morning run followed by a moderate afternoon run) or in small micro-cycles following threshold or long aerobic sessions.
• At the most advanced level, some plans also introduce the category of “strong” running, positioned between LT1 and LT2—roughly approaching marathon pace.
• This effort occasionally appears as a secondary run or as a controlled aerobic stimulus between heavier workouts, providing athletes with gentle exposure to faster running while maintaining the balance between stress and recovery that underpins sustainable marathon progress.

Taper

49:50 -

• I believe most runners taper too much and for too long before their marathon. My approach is based on the idea that the marathon-specific phase already functions as a series of mini tapers.
• During this period, training naturally alternates between large stress sessions and extended recovery. You complete a big workout, follow it with an easy or very short run, add a midweek moderate session, then recover again before the next major effort.
• This rhythm means that you’re already allowing frequent recovery throughout the phase, so there’s no need for a long, aggressive taper afterward.
• In practice, I think it’s perfectly appropriate to complete a full workout up to two weeks before race day. In all my plans, the final major session is scheduled roughly 10 days before the marathon—slightly reduced in scale but still substantial.
• My reasoning is simple: if a workout leaves you so fatigued that you can’t recover in two weeks, it was the wrong workout to begin with. The goal is to maintain fitness, not to exhaust the body and then rely on a long taper to feel better.
• Over time, I’ve found that large reductions in training volume often backfire. Athletes who were performing well during marathon-specific training would suddenly drop their mileage sharply and then arrive at race day feeling flat, sluggish, or unresponsive.
• In several cases, their best training sessions occurred three weeks before the race—when they were still training consistently. Those experiences led me to shorten and soften the taper period significantly.
• In my view, the taper is not a distinct phase but a continuation of the training rhythm, culminating in the race itself. The marathon should feel like one more “big weekend session,” except longer and more focused.
• Mileage and intensity are reduced modestly in the final weeks, but never to the point of disrupting the athlete’s rhythm. I don’t believe in “race day miracles.” The goal is to arrive at the start line fresh, confident, and physiologically primed, not over-rested and out of sync.
• There’s also a psychological benefit to this approach. When athletes expect a long taper, they sometimes overreach in training, pushing too hard with the idea that they’ll “make up for it” by resting later. This can lead to fatigue, minor injuries, or even loss of form.
• By maintaining a steadier progression, athletes stay more consistent and avoid digging themselves into a hole that the taper then has to fix.
• The marathon-specific phase is also where you should rehearse every detail of race execution. The key workouts are done on terrain that mirrors the race course—rolling if you’re preparing for Boston, flat for Berlin or Chicago.
• You should practice your race-day fueling strategy, wear the same shoes, socks, shorts, and singlet, and even replicate your pre-race dinner. These details might seem small, but eliminating every possible variable reduces the risk of unexpected issues on race day—like discomfort, chafing, or stomach trouble.
• Ultimately, my philosophy is to build gradually, recover intelligently, and keep momentum steady. The taper is not a time to transform fitness or chase miracles—it’s simply the final phase of a well-structured progression that prepares you to perform at your best when it matters most.

Targeting a race pace

56:42 -

• In the general phase of training, I intentionally prescribe workouts as percentages of 5K pace rather than marathon pace.
• The reason is simple: too many runners become fixated on a predetermined goal time months before race day—deciding, for example, “I’m going to run a three-hour marathon,” and then structuring every workout around that pace.
• When athletes do this, they often begin training at an intensity that their current fitness cannot yet support, which can lead to fatigue, frustration, or even injury.
• By basing early training intensities on 5K pace, I encourage athletes to delay that fixation and instead train according to their actual fitness, not their aspirations.
• The goal is to keep the process adaptive: start from where you are, progress gradually, and only later in the training cycle—once you’ve built a strong foundation—determine what your realistic marathon pace should be.
• When entering the marathon-supportive phase, each athlete establishes a current fitness estimate for marathon pace. This is not necessarily their ultimate goal pace, but rather a working value based on how training feels and performs.
• Each workout in the plan includes a target difficulty rating—typically an RPE (Rate of Perceived Exertion) between 7 and 8 out of 10. After each key workout, the athlete assesses whether the session matched that intended effort.
  • If a session prescribed at a 7/10 effort feels like a 9/10, then the fitness estimate is too aggressive, and paces should be adjusted slower.
  • If workouts consistently feel easier than prescribed, then the athlete’s fitness has improved, and the current estimate can be increased.
• This system makes goal pace a dynamic value, refined over time rather than fixed in advance. About three to four weeks before race day, the athlete’s current fitness estimate should naturally converge toward their goal marathon pace.
• By then, the data from training will make the appropriate pace clear. It’s fine to adjust slightly for motivation or external factors—for example, aiming for 2:59 when fitness suggests 3:01—but the process should remain grounded in evidence from training, not arbitrary ambition.
• To establish that first marathon-pace estimate, I recommend using a conversion from current 5K performance, which serves as a practical and physiologically relevant benchmark. The book includes conversion factors that are slightly more conservative than those in Jack Daniels’ tables, since those are often based on lifetime personal bests rather than current fitness.
• For most runners, early marathon-pace estimates will fall between 78–85% of 5K pace, with the lower end representing less experienced or lower-mileage athletes, and the higher end applying to well-trained or high-volume runners.
• The key is to treat that first estimate as temporary and flexible. It’s perfectly acceptable to be off by a few seconds per kilometer. The purpose is not to lock into a fixed number, but to start with an informed guess and refine it as training unfolds.
• By working from present ability rather than future expectations, athletes not only improve more consistently but often surpass their initial goals—because they remain open to the possibility that their true potential may be higher than they first imagined.

VO2max training in a marathon training program

1:02:40 -

• I believe it’s essential to focus on increasing VO₂ max during the general phase of marathon training. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean performing what most people think of as traditional “VO₂ max workouts.”
• The reality is that any running intensity above your steady-state maximum—that is, faster than your lactate threshold or critical speed—can stimulate VO₂ max development.
• There isn’t a single “magical” VO₂ max pace that you must run to improve this physiological parameter. Efforts performed at 8K pace, 10K pace, 5K pace, or even faster can all contribute meaningfully to VO₂ max improvement, provided they are structured correctly and integrated with adequate recovery.
• In the framework of marathon preparation, VO₂ max work belongs to the general phase, where the emphasis is on building global fitness rather than directly simulating race pace.
• Because these intensities are relatively far from marathon speed, their role is to enhance the athlete’s aerobic ceiling—the overall capacity of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems—before shifting toward more event-specific work later on.
• As training progresses, VO₂ max-oriented sessions become less frequent and eventually disappear altogether, replaced by workouts that are closer to marathon pace.
• The idea is to move systematically from general physiological development to specific performance preparation, building from the top of your aerobic system downward to the exact demands of the marathon.

Heat training

1:03:50 -

• There’s an entire chapter in Marathon Excellence dedicated to heat training, included in the advanced training techniques section. It summarizes the most recent research on heat adaptation, covering how it works, how to implement it effectively, and how long the adaptations last.
• The short version is this: if there’s a reasonable chance that your race will take place in warm or hot conditions, you should absolutely prepare for it.
• My general approach is to check historical weather data for the race location—if temperatures above about 12°C are common, which I consider the upper end of optimal marathon conditions, then I plan for some degree of heat adaptation.
• On my website, I also provide a heat-adjusted pace calculator, which estimates how temperature and humidity may affect marathon performance. Of course, this assumes a level of heat acclimation; without it, or if you struggle to tolerate heat, your performance could decline far more than predicted.
• As for how to conduct heat training, I believe most athletes today overdo it. You don’t need to simulate extreme environments or push to the limits of discomfort. The physiological stimulus for adaptation is achieved through two main responses:
  • Elevated core temperature, above what you’d experience in cool conditions.
  • Significant sweating for an extended period.
• Those two conditions can easily be met in moderate temperatures—around 20–24°C—especially if you wear slightly warmer clothing, such as a thermal top or compression gear. There’s no need to train in heavy winter layers or sauna suits, which only raise unnecessary risks.
• For full heat adaptation, research suggests roughly two weeks of exposure, with about five sessions per week, each lasting around one hour. Alternatively, you can extend the process to three or four weeks by reducing the frequency to three sessions per week.
• The key is consistency—repeated exposures cause physiological changes such as increased plasma volume, reduced heart rate for a given workload, and improved sweating efficiency.
• Importantly, heat training should always be approached conservatively. Most scientific studies are designed to exaggerate temperature differences (for example, comparing 8°C versus 25°C in high humidity) because they rely on small participant groups and need large effects to reach statistical significance.
• In those controlled environments, participants’ core temperatures are continuously monitored, and trials are stopped the moment safety thresholds are exceeded. Out in the real world, we don’t have those safeguards—no one is measuring your internal temperature mid-run—so it’s essential to stay well within safe limits.
• Practically speaking, this means sweating and feeling warm, but not overwhelmed. If you’re running a marathon in very hot conditions—say, 30°C and humid—you’ll need to take heat adaptation seriously and train accordingly.
• But if your expected race temperature is around 15–20°C, much less intensity is required; simply training in moderate warmth or wearing an extra layer during select runs is often enough to prepare your body.

Calcium supplementation

1:10:40 -

• To be honest, I’m not fully up to date on the latest micronutrient guidelines, particularly regarding calcium and other minerals linked to bone health. However, there is consistent evidence across several studies that bone metabolism and structural integrity differ significantly between sports.
• For example, cyclists tend to have lower bone density and strength compared to runners, likely due to the low-impact nature of cycling. Runners, in turn, typically show lower bone structural integrity than athletes in high-impact, multi-directional sports such as basketball or volleyball, where bones are exposed to far greater mechanical loading.
• Regarding calcium supplementation, the evidence is somewhat mixed. There was an older study conducted on Navy recruits that suggested calcium intake might influence stress fracture risk, but I’m not aware of strong replication or more recent large-scale trials confirming that effect.
• What does appear to be more firmly supported by current research is the role of energy and carbohydrate availability in maintaining bone health among endurance athletes.
• Low energy availability—particularly when carbohydrate intake is insufficient—can negatively affect bone metabolism. Many athletes misunderstand this concept: even if total daily caloric intake matches energy expenditure, poor distribution of calories throughout the day can still create prolonged periods of low energy availability.
• A common pattern is waking up early to train without breakfast, eating a light lunch, and only consuming a substantial meal in the evening. This leaves the body in a catabolic, energy-deficient state for most of the day, which can impair recovery, reduce hormone levels, and weaken bone remodeling over time.
• For endurance athletes—especially runners—ensuring adequate carbohydrate intake before and after training, and maintaining balanced energy availability throughout the day, is essential not only for performance but also for long-term bone health and injury prevention.

LT1 relationship with marathon pacing

1:14:21 -

• That’s a great and nuanced question, and I think it’s important to start by clarifying a common misconception: LT2 (or lactate threshold 2) is not inherently tied to a specific time duration like one hour.
• It just happens that, for many endurance athletes, their LT2 pace roughly corresponds to what they can sustain for about 45–70 minutes, but that’s a correlation, not the physiological definition. LT2 fundamentally represents the highest metabolic steady state—the intensity at which lactate production and clearance remain balanced.
• For some athletes, that occurs near one-hour pace, but for others (like an 800-meter runner), their steady-state maximum would occur at a much higher speed that they could never sustain for anywhere close to an hour.
• The same reasoning applies to LT1 (lactate threshold 1). LT1 is not connected to a fixed time duration. It marks the point at which blood lactate levels first rise above baseline and where oxygen uptake begins to drift upward—a phenomenon linked to the gradual recruitment of fast-twitch fibers as slow-twitch fibers start to fatigue.
• Physiologically, this represents the transition from purely aerobic “easy” work to the beginning of the heavy-intensity domain, but it’s highly individual and not defined by how long one can hold it.
• When we look at LT1 as a percentage of VO₂ max, the relationships vary dramatically depending on fitness level. For sedentary individuals, LT1 can occur at a relatively high percentage of VO₂ max simply because their overall aerobic capacity is so low.
• As fitness improves, the thresholds tend to spread apart, meaning LT1 occurs at a lower percentage of VO₂ max while LT2 rises closer to it. In very well-trained athletes, that upper range becomes compressed again, reflecting highly efficient energy systems and a small gap between sustainable and maximal aerobic intensities.
• In the context of the marathon, LT1 itself is not a critical determinant of performance, at least not in the same way it is for ultra-distance events, where metabolic efficiency and fat utilization play larger roles. For the marathon, LT2 (or steady-state max) and running economy are far more decisive.
• A well-trained marathoner typically races well above LT1, while a less-trained or slower runner may be racing at or even below LT1, depending on their endurance capacity and fueling strategy.
  • LT1 marks the start of measurable metabolic strain but has no fixed duration; it’s highly individual.
  • LT2 represents the highest sustainable steady state—not a one-hour pace, but whatever pace corresponds to that balance point for the individual.
  • For elite or well-trained marathoners, marathon pace sits above LT1 but below LT2.
  • For slower or less-trained runners, marathon pace may fall right around LT1 or even slightly below.
• The range of how long someone can hold LT1 is vast—an elite Ironman triathlete, for example, can remain close to LT1 for several hours, whereas a novice might fatigue after less than 90 minutes at that same relative effort.

Double threshold and block training

1:19:04 -

• I include detailed chapters on both double threshold training and special blocks, as these are two of the most fascinating and widely discussed advanced training interventions in modern endurance preparation.
• At first glance, they look very similar—both involve two workouts in a single day—but the underlying logic behind them is fundamentally different.
• The double threshold method, popularized by Marius Bakken and later refined by the Ingebrigtsen family, is designed to answer a specific question: How can we accumulate the highest possible volume of high-end aerobic work close to LT2 in a repeatable, sustainable way?
• The approach aims to maximize weekly threshold training load without overwhelming recovery capacity. Typically, it involves performing a threshold session in the morning, another in the afternoon, followed by an easy day, then repeating that pattern with another double-threshold day later in the week.
• Over time, this creates a highly stable rhythm of consistent, submaximal training stress—a model built on precision, repeatability, and long-term aerobic development.
• By contrast, the special block, an innovation attributed to Renato Canova and the Italian school of marathon training, operates on the principle of supercompensation—the combination of an exceptionally large stress followed by an exceptionally long recovery. Instead of prioritizing even load distribution, this approach deliberately creates extreme peaks and valleys in training intensity.
• A typical special block might involve 50 km of total work in one day, divided into two sessions—perhaps 30 km in the morning and 20 km in the afternoon, all within ±10% of marathon pace. Afterward, athletes take three to five days of very light training to absorb the stimulus.
• The purpose is to replicate race-like fatigue and metabolic strain while still maintaining control over training structure.
• The terminology “special” comes from the Italian system, where speciale refers to supportive training—work performed at 90–110% of race pace. In this context, the special block is essentially a marathon-supportive overload, bridging the gap between general preparation and race specificity.
• Within my own training plans, these methods appear only in the Tornado and Hurricane programs—the two highest-volume tiers. The double-threshold framework begins to appear modestly in the Tornado plan, and more explicitly in the Hurricane plan, which also includes one optional special block.
• These plans are intended for athletes running 160 km per week or more, who have the durability and experience to handle advanced workloads.
• For athletes curious about experimenting with these techniques, I strongly advise adapting the principle, not the volume. You should not attempt to replicate an elite athlete’s 50 km special block or 20 km of double-threshold running per day if your current training volume is far lower.
• A practical way to explore the concept is to increase your total threshold work by 30–50% relative to your current norm, perhaps by adding an extra session rather than doubling up in one day.
• Another variation I often use is what I call a “double-single threshold” approach—performing two moderately large threshold workouts in the same week (for example, Monday and Wednesday), separated by an easy day, to simulate the training density of a double threshold block without the same mechanical or metabolic strain.
• For athletes coming from triathlon, the double threshold concept can be adapted more easily because of the multi-sport structure—combining, for instance, a swim and a run or a bike and a run within the same day. The lower impact of non-running sessions makes it possible to accumulate threshold-level metabolic stress while avoiding the injury risk associated with high-volume running.
• In contrast, pure runners must be far more cautious. Double threshold sessions demand extensive tissue resilience and careful progression.
• I never recommend attempting them until an athlete is comfortably performing double easy runs multiple times per week and maintaining at least 110 km per week of training volume. 
• Even then, it’s best introduced gradually—starting with partial doubles or alternate-day thresholds.

Recommendations for Minnesota tourism

1:26:48 -

• If you ever visit Minneapolis and you’re looking for something to do, my top sport-related recommendation would be to run along the Mississippi River.
• The city sits right on the banks of this enormous river, which stretches the entire length of the United States, and it’s lined with exceptional bike and pedestrian paths on both sides.
• You can easily cover miles of uninterrupted running, cycling, or walking while enjoying beautiful river views and well-maintained trails.
• My non-sport recommendation is also connected to the river: the Stone Arch Bridge. It’s an iconic 160-year-old pedestrian-only bridge that connects downtown Minneapolis to the opposite bank near a historic theater.
• The city recently completed a full renovation of it, and it’s one of the most scenic spots in town. From the bridge, you can take great photos of the skyline, look down over Saint Anthony Falls, and even include it as part of a running route if you’d like. It’s one of those places that captures the essence of Minneapolis—active, historic, and beautifully tied to the river.

LINKS AND RESOURCES

• Marathon Excellence for Everyone - John's brand new book
• Running Writings - John's website
• All of John's calculators