The finest approach to put together for a marathon is revealed – and why you may not need to run as exhausting as you suppose

We’re getting close to 2025 and inevitably that means some of us may want to start thinking about our New Year’s resolutions. 

As is often the case after a week of filling up on chocolates, turkey and plenty of booze, taking up more exercise will be top of the list. And for those wanting to set the bar high, then the idea of taking on a marathon could be even more enticing. 

Well if that’s you, then you’re in luck as one of the largest ever studies of marathon runners has given clues on how non-elites can best train for the 26.2-mile distance. 

Researchers analysed data for 119,452 individual recreational runners from fitness tracking app Strava, looking at their training in the 16-week lead up to 151,813 completed marathons.

The dataset was comprised of people who had trained for the London Marathon, New York Marathon or Dublin Marathon between 2014 and 2017.

Faster times were associated with a pyramidal training approach, according to the research by academics from the University of Hertfordshire, London Metropolitan University, University College Dublin and Auckland University of Technology.

Researchers observed that faster non-elite runners tended to do the bulk of their mileage – about 70% – at a conversational pace. 

Meanwhile, only 5% was done at high intensity – where an athlete is not able to speak in sentences and breathing becomes quite laboured – which will come as a sigh of relief for those less keen on tiring themselves out. 

This differed from the so-called 80/20 training approach reported in elite runners, where 80% of running is at a low intensity and 20% is high intensity, with very little in the middle ground.

Dr Daniel Muniz, senior lecturer in Exercise Physiology at the University of Hertfordshire, said overall the research shows that ‘the more miles you run in training, the faster your marathon time is likely to be.’ 

Crucially, he added that the more training time ‘spent in the easy comfortable zone one pace, the quicker your marathon will turn out to be’.

He said that the fastest non-elite runners, ‘to no-one’s surprise’, were those who ran the highest mileage of around 107km (66 miles) per week.

Asked for his advice to those training for a spring marathon, he stressed the importance of increasing mileage gradually to avoid injury risk, and being consistent.

Second author Dr Ben Hunter, lecturer in Exercise Physiology and Biomechanics at London Metropolitan University, said: ‘A lot of the data about best practice comes from elite marathon runners who typically run 160km (100 miles) to 220km (137 miles) per week which obviously isn’t the same mileage that recreational runners could hope to get to.

‘So the whole goal of this was to see what’s the best practice for recreational athletes, those who are more mid-pack but then also who are getting sub three hour marathons, to see what recommendations we can drive.’

He said that they found ‘something slightly different’ from the 80/20 principle was the case for non-elites.

‘Even the quickest recreational runners don’t get to 80% of their training being low intensity,’ Dr Hunter added. 

‘Males about 67% and females 57% even in the fastest runners, so they fall well short of that 80% that’s typically spoken about when it comes to elite runners.’

While he cautioned that it was not possible to draw causal links from the observational study, Dr Hunter suggested a pyramidal approach allows runners to ‘accrue more volume, more mileage without the mechanical load that’s associated with higher intensity running’.

‘It also allows a greater amount of running without necessarily leading to a greater injury risk,’ he said.

The average age of the runners was 40 years old, and the marathon finishing times ranged between two-and-a-half hours and six hours.

The research is published in the journal Sports Medicine.