Collapse Point Theory
I enjoy reading books about running. Sometimes for relaxation. And sometimes in search of ways to improve my running. Thus, I came a somewhat controversial topic – The Collapse Point Theory.
This was devised by Ken Young, an American record-holder in several ultra marathon distances. The formula says that the point at which one breaks down in a long-distance race will be about one-twentieth of his total mileage for the past two months. Young uses two months’ training as a basis, because that’s about how long it takes to accumulate the desired training effects from all the miles.
Joe Henderson came up with a simple way of expressing the formula. Reduce the mileage to a daily average. Tripling that average gives the same collapse point as Young’s formula.
Young emphasizes that these are absolute minimums. You can’t expect to go further than the collapse distance even under the best circumstances.
Young does not place much stock on the long weekend run which has been traditional since the 1960s.
He tested the idea on himself for the Boston marathon. In the two months before Boston, his longest training runs were 15 miles. However, based on his averages, his collapse point is 45 miles! He finished Boston at 2:25:41.
While extra-long runs may not be necessary, reasonably long runs are still necessary for reasons like: They boost the average and they build confidence.
There was a study, that debunked the Collapse Point Theory. This was cited by Tim Noakes (The Lore of Running) about a study of the Glasgow Marathon wherein runners with inadequate training did not slow down dramatically after reaching their predicted collapse point.
Personally, I found this as a useful guide. Combining it with the Galloway Method, I am able to run longer and easier, and hopefully avoid injury.
References:
1, Run Furhter, Run Faster, Joe Henderson, McMillan Publishing Company, 1979
2. The Lore of Running, Tim Noakes, OUP 2001
