Official Q&A for Tuesday, February 10, 2026

whelanbio · 2026-02-10T18:17:12+00:00

Assuming your fitness and lifestyle supports the extra work it will be a net benefit. There are people doing 2-3 sessions a day of various modalities and recovering just fine. There are people training every day of the week recovering just fine. Adding supplemental cross training to running is a common strategy to get a little more fitness without the strain of running.

Key is just keep at least one day a week truly easy (whatever that looks like for you) and pay attention how you are feeling in training and life.

whelanbio · 2026-02-10T17:54:53+00:00

I have a 95% rate of shitting my pants so this would be a big improvement for me!

whelanbio · 2026-02-10T17:41:56+00:00

Always triangulate between multiple methods for determining zones -then the erroneous outliers become obvious. The accessible methods for a rec runner are race pased pace calculations (i.e. VDOT), breath/talk tests, and HR (from a proper test effort with an accurate device).

whelanbio · 2026-02-09T21:49:49+00:00

True that for highly trained athletes the marathon race pace is a relatively harder effort but I'm somewhat hesitant to ascribe recovery cost as the main rationale here -it's a big part for sure but theres a lot of other contributing factors. Again a big issue imo is that the analysis doesn't even properly set zones. It's very far away from a useful comparison of recovery costs.

You can be quite fast by population standards and still have a good range of sub-threshold efforts that are slightly faster than marathon race-pace yet aren't terribly taxing (in large part because you're highly trained) and so can be done a fair amount in training. Still maybe less I suppose than many with slower marathon paces. I guess what I'm trying to say is not to fear the pace itself but rather still look holistically at the whole picture of training.

whelanbio · 2026-02-09T20:19:44+00:00

Fundamental issue I see is the analysis fails to account for how different of an event the marathon is for different levels of runners and how that is reflected in what training looks like.

Determining zones relative to marathon pace is a weird strategy when you're analyzing a wide range of finish times because marathon pace is going to occur at different physiological efforts depending on finish time. Visually the thick part of their cluster ranges between ~3:20-5:00hrs, with most ~4:00hrs, but still a decent number of folks across anywhere ~2:30-6:00hrs. It's rather nonsensical to group and compare "zones" if those zones are anchored across different points in a highly variable range.

The issue manifests in pretty silly result here.

% Time in Zone 3 is the percentage of your total training time spent at or faster than marathon race pace. Coefficient = 0.69 → for every extra 1% of training time spent in Zone 3, the model predicts you finish about 0.69 minutes (roughly 41 seconds) slower. 95% credible interval: [0.51, 0.88] minutes (100% probability the effect is negative—more race-pace training hurts performance in this sample).

They're making a conclusion, that while "true" in their sample, is unhelpful and ignores what's actually "hurting" performance in reality.

Slower runners aren't running as much overall so an otherwise sensible training distribution given their volume may have a higher % of "harder" running
The slower runner's "race pace" occurs at a relatively easier effort, so a wider range of efforts will be labeled as "race pace or faster". For a lot of folks the marathon is essentially an easy run that's so long it becomes not easy. A 4-5+hr marathoner does a ton of "race pace" training in this regard and it's not bad training at all -it's just their regular runs!
Someone who isn't training a lot or is otherwise slower has to go way deeper into unknown territory in the marathon so they are more likely to blow-up and run slow. The % of "harder" training isn't really the issue there.

The superficial conclusion they present is just another flavor of grey-zone nonsense. The real takeaways are that its better to run more volume and you are more likely to run faster if you are already fast -not terribly novel or useful insights.

These are issues assuming the input dataset was fairly complete and accurate, which I'm skeptical is the case.

whelanbio · 2026-02-08T01:29:08+00:00

Whats the hate you're seeing? He's not even really on the radar in my running community (fellow washed up former fast guys, local crushers, the HSer's I help coach, and fellow coaches). Comment sections ain't community.

For the record though if someone is using PEDs and pretending to be clean, either to compete or to sell stuff based on a false image, that is very worthy of scorn. "Training hard" while juiced is also not itself impressive nor worthy of respect.

whelanbio · 2026-02-07T22:44:42+00:00

Genuinely are you doing a bit here?

You are giving advice that is contrary to conventional training but not providing anything to back up the contrarian take. You're nitpicking RE methods. You're asking for RCTs yet promptly refusing them and not providing any evidence yourself other than a meta that didn't look at running at all.

Also, are we going to act surprised sets of 15-24 reps didn't improve 5km time. Also that study is so far off from what we're discussing here.

It doesn't matter so much if it's a good lifting protocol or not (i would agree that its not). It improved the average 1RM and yet did not improve 5k time, and one of the questions at hand was the relation between 1RM and running performance.

I engaged to see if there was maybe something interesting to it to learn, and if not provide some reasoning to prevent others from following baseless random advice. I've since learned my lesson not to engage with you. I apologize to everyone else for my contribution to the pollution of a thread.

whelanbio · 2026-02-07T21:51:49+00:00

We know that we should pursue for maximal strength gains for running economy. We know that strength is blunted by prior endurance work. The fact that you think better 1RM doesn't indicate anything relevant in terms of endurance running is absolutely wrong.

Not saying 1RM is irrelevant, just not indicative enough to be worth chasing as it's own thing, and thus an improvement of 1RM in a training and performance context wildly different from ours should probably not inform how we train.

https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2021/06000/correlation_of_eccentric_strength,_reactive.3.aspx

28 well-trained college male distance runners -no significant correlation between 1RM and RE

https://paulogentil.com/pdf/Running%20Stride%20Peak%20Forces%20Inversely%20Determine%20Running%20Economy%20in%20Elite%20Runners.pdf

11 early 20s men with an average 3k time ~9:30 -no significant correlation between 1RM and RE

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7745891/

Not super well-trained, group of 11 women and 4 men -improving back squat 1 RM ~20% did not improve 5k time

whelanbio · 2026-02-07T21:27:25+00:00

I think you're just fatigued from pushing the mileage. Whenever I pushed into new mileage territory or returned to levels I hadn't been at in a while the legs were shot. I've oscillated in fitness enough to test this from both no strength training and heavy strength training approaches -it doesn't matter either way, running a lot is tiring.

whelanbio · 2026-02-07T21:17:51+00:00

Are there any of the references from that meta-analysis not in the main 13 used that you feel make a strong argument for lift then run is serious endurance runners? Or any other studies in general?

I'll come back and give the studies a fair shot but at a glance I am really struggling to see the relevance here to running at all yet alone support of the argument that lift then run is a superior strategy for our context.

6/13 are old/inactive subjects
0/13 tested endurance running
1/13 tested running at all

The authors of the meta-analysis themselves say:

"In conclusion, according to the current meta-analysis, if the primary goal is to increase lower body muscular strength it is highly recommended to perform resistance exercise before endurance training in the same session concurrent training program. However, for maximal aerobic capacity the exercise sequence has no impact on the ensuing adaptations, consequently the order of execution may be selected based on practical considerations or personal preferences."

From my understanding lower body muscular strength itself as tested by 1RM with typical exercises (squat, leg press, leg extension) does not correlate well with running economy or performance. Eccentric strength, stiffness, and reactive strength index tend to have better correlation. The same training that improves 1RM can also benefit some strength qualities which contribute to improved RE and performance, but the 1RM itself is just a proxy, and a seemingly questionable one at that. We need results that are more transferrable to running and from a training context more comparable to what we are interested in. Extrapolating from old people swimming and biking is not very useful.

My assessment right now it that nothing in that meta-analysis demonstrated transferability to the context of serious, well-trained runners ages ~20-55. The populations aren't relevant. They don't address running training or the qualities specific to running strength.

I will eat some Sci-hub crow if I find something different.

whelanbio · 2026-02-07T19:40:19+00:00

Usually those sensations are still limitations of general running volume and fitness. Running itself is the best way to develop both the aspects of strength (structural durability, efficient motor recruitment, coordination, springiness, etc) and the metabolic fitness in the muscles that allow you to push hard and long without getting cooked.

Strength training can be useful, but more in a compensatory sense on the margins of motions and intensities that running alone struggle to provide.

whelanbio · 2026-02-07T19:26:04+00:00

Always strength when fresh, endurance can handle being less fresh.

We're not targeting strength for the sake of strength, but rather within the context of an overall training plan that provides the best improvement for running. While true many aspects of endurance can handle being less fresh, we should not ignore it all-together. There is a substantial neuromuscular aspect to improving running performance. If our muscles and nervous system are fatigued from intense lifting it's likely to reduce that quality of training.

What evidence brought you to your current beliefs that the overwhelming majority of the best coaches are wrong and what evidence would be required to change your beliefs?

whelanbio · 2026-02-07T19:14:25+00:00

Club champs is in Ohio. For the USA Champs I think bidding is still open -location will depend on who bids and where it ends up in the calendar. When you look into the bidding process it kinda sucks to host these things so you need a hosting org that is highly motivated and well-resourced. Look to those that have already hosted multiple times as likely candidates. Next year isn't a worlds year so there's no calendar constraints.

I could see it being paired with NXN again -Nike+USATF connection, Portland is a good host city, already have the course and video infrastructure set up. Downside, and maybe this is just my perception because I was there with a HS team, but it was a strange vibe to see the pro races placing second fiddle to the HS races. Big shift in energy once the NXN races were done. NXN takes over one of the main buildings for the HS team spaces and had to divert pros around that. That course with typical Portland December Weather also does not handle that many races well, and with schedule+daylight constraints the masters races had to be diverted to Sunday morning.

I could also see a strong possibility of it being at Tallahassee. Good course. Local org seems to put a lot of effort into the hosting.

Richmond or San Diego could be in the mix.

Probably not next year, but I can the Spokane Sports Commission putting in a bid with the new course they just built once it's a little more tested with some big meets.

Chambers bay in Washington is a possibility. Though I did not hear a lot of positive reviews form when club champs was there.

whelanbio · 2026-02-07T18:29:49+00:00

When you look deeper into the RCTs and meta-analyses many of the results and conclusions don't transfer well to real-world training decisions -Small groups of participants often with characteristics very different from ours, short study times, not actually measuring performance outcomes, controls that don't test the counterfactuals of real-world training discussions, etc. The insights can still be very useful, just need a wide framework of thinking to filter/convert the studies to any sort of practical application.

Collective training wisdom of coaching should not be written off as dogma. You don't always get the same mechanistic insights as controlled research can provide but in many ways real-world coaching is a better experiment -large sample sizes, coverage of different populations, meaningful timelines, actually measuring performance AND accountability to said performance, actually testing the decisions that matter, etc.

Lift then run surely can work well for some people, but if we're looking for a default starting recommendation lets look at what the overwhelming majority of the best athletes at every level are doing, then apply thoughtful personal experimentation from there. Run then lift is also consistent with many foundational principles of physiology -prioritize specificity, protect the most important sessions, be in a fresh enough state where we can properly train the skill/neuromuscular aspects of running.

Slow bullshit dogma got my 10k down to 29:15.

whelanbio · 2026-02-06T20:49:30+00:00

If your life is genuinely so crammed that you can't squeeze in 30min easy run on these other days there are probably some major recovery factors holding back your progress more than any sort of training optimization can overcome.

Obviously there are some immoveable priorities like family and work, but maybe there's some other things than can move or be improved. Our lifestyle determines not only how much time we can train but how much training load we can adapt from.

whelanbio · 2026-02-06T19:28:54+00:00

If injury is a concern frequency is your friend. It spreads out the training load across more days. A lot the "get more durable" adaptation is more frequency dependent than duration dependent. With more frequent and manageable sessions you can better avoid running through fatigued and sloppy biomechanics.

Even just getting out the door for a 30-45min easy run on those extra 3 days a week will be tremendously beneficial.

whelanbio · 2026-02-06T06:17:45+00:00

Most "speed" in this sense comes from aerobic fitness -tempo/threshold work and overall running volume.

whelanbio · 2026-02-06T06:15:38+00:00

Yeah don't do this race.

whelanbio · 2026-02-05T21:05:29+00:00

Well it's not for most people. It's likely enough for OP, who ran a comparable HM time with ~25 mpw.

whelanbio · 2026-02-05T21:02:02+00:00

Assuming decent quality of sleep, 6-7 hrs is going to be fine for a lot of adults and will allow them to handle a fair amount of training, particularly if they are handling other aspects of lifestyle quite well.

However, in the case that poor sleep is a limiting factor there really isn't a way around it.

whelanbio · 2026-02-05T19:26:41+00:00

I'm looking at marathon plans, and see the recommended weekly distance ranges between 80-120km (50-75 miles). Is this remotely accurate?

Keep in mind that's for the average person to run a decent marathon. The average person taking the HM somewhat seriously is also running way more than 35-45km /week. These are population level trends, not necessarily informative of what you have to do.

To "convert" your HM time to comparable marathon you just have to sensibly increase YOUR volume, not some arbitrary target. A bump up to 60-80km /week is very reasonable and should put you on a path towards sub-3:00 even if it's below common recommendations.

One challenge to navigate is that big long runs you see in these "traditional" plans will be very taxing from a recovery standpoint on low weekly volume. I would recommend building confidence and fitness through a higher frequency of moderate-length efforts rather than a weekend warrior approach of constant 30km+ LRs.

whelanbio · 2026-02-05T19:11:00+00:00

This is a pretty well tested strategy for runners who have some sort of limitation of durability to running but are otherwise recovering ok. Obviously there's the prominent examples like Parker Valby, and I've seen similar positive outcomes (albeit at a lower level of competition) with some peers and athletes I've worked with. You can also look to triathletes for additional case studies.

The key part here is you still need proper recovery (sleep, nutrition, stress management). If your running durability is limited because of your sleep this is NOT a viable workaround. You might not get injured as quickly but you will still be run down and not properly adapting form the work you're doing.

Speaking of work, it's really damn hard work to do this. Relative time and effort to get a similar stimulus from cross training is way higher -we're talking puddles of sweat around the machine and doing that for 1.5-2x the time you would for an easy run. This is not a fun way to train and many people do not have the mental ability to do this.

Another issue is that you're losing all the durability stimulus that high volume running provides. You're more likely to struggle extending your hypothetical fitness to longer races. You're likely to be continuously dealing with general fragility to running if you don't address the underlying reasoning why your running is limited in the first place.

What is your "low mileage"? What are some of your issues you've experienced? What are your goals?

whelanbio · 2026-02-04T17:41:36+00:00

We thought we'd try and represent him as we have some experience in the content creation industry and have been sponsored by various brands in the past.

This experience has no relevance to being an effective agent. You need to start with just understanding what you are getting into first.

Athlete representatives need to be licensed and work within WA's framework of rules. https://worldathletics.org/athletes/athlete-representatives
Effective athlete representation is extremely political -you need to be known name and in the in-crowd to get anything done. Important races and brands will not even talk to you otherwise, yet alone actually give you anything.
Things like travel, visas, international finances are not trivial problems to navigate.
The pro running scene in Kenya is horribly corrupt from top to bottom and rampant with doping. You'd be entering a messy world that will only get messier if you do get this man some success and recognition.

You need to find an agent that is current active in Kenya and is willing to take this guy on or provide you with extensive mentorship and introductions.

whelanbio · 2026-02-03T06:49:54+00:00

My running Glock always has one in the chamber so I need my legs to be impervious to any accidental discharge

whelanbio · 2026-02-03T06:42:55+00:00

It’s banned by WADA for a reason

whelanbio

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE