|
Nov 2011
1:02pm, 18 Nov 2011
733 posts
|
The Duckinator
DG - if you want to focus on marathons/half marathons then focusing on just getting the time in is absolutely the right way to go. In terms of pace, MP + 90s is probably about as fast as you want to go (I use MP + 120s, although my MP is derived from a calculator as I haven't run a marathon).
If you want to periodise for an April marathon then I'd suggest endurance (through just running easy miles, pure and simple) and extended tempo runs @ MP - HMP up until New Year. Over winter you could set a limit of your long run at 2 hours and 35-40 mins tempo @ MP. As you get closer to target races, you can do marathon-specific long runs (20+) and bump up the length of that tempo to around 60 mins @ MP and 30-35 mins @ HMP. The odd parkrun or 5k race is a good idea for keeping a bit of quicker pace injected in but don't expect to hit your potential without 5k specific training.
Strides are good and doing them before your tempo runs and once or twice per week on easy runs will help with form and turnover. If you go that that 5th run in (although if possible don't do it on the treadmill) make it easier than normal and just use it as a run you do to flush the waste products out of your legs.
When you get into the final 6 weeks you could do some 10kp intervals if you really felt you needed to, but it's entirely possible to run good marathons off of nothing more than base endurance, extended tempos and strides.
|
|
Nov 2011
1:03pm, 18 Nov 2011
734 posts
|
The Duckinator
Should also add that 60 mins @ MP will be difficult, and probably one of the last big sessions you should do before a taper. Same with 35 mins @ HMP.
|
|
Nov 2011
1:12pm, 18 Nov 2011
11,612 posts
|
Fenland Runner
"60 mins @ MP will be difficult"....only if your MP (predicted or 'real') is a true reflection. As I'm cr@p at long distance, my current MP for 60 mins is easy.
|
|
Nov 2011
1:20pm, 18 Nov 2011
1,276 posts
|
curly45
FR - Duck means MP(ftp) - marathon pace for training purposes
|
|
Nov 2011
1:23pm, 18 Nov 2011
11,613 posts
|
Fenland Runner
curly45 - so you'd advise basing MP on say the calculator from MacMillan or Fetch for say 5k?
|
|
Nov 2011
1:40pm, 18 Nov 2011
1,278 posts
|
curly45
Depends for what purpose FR - for an MP run of 60 mins most likely it wont be your actual MP unless you are extremely well trained and thus have a tight conversion. It has to be at the right intensity level to work the systems necessary for training. It might be your target MP though.
Duck uses McMillan to churn out a relevant pace band, I use a pace band set by my coach to do the same thing (based also on my shorter distance race times). If I used my actual MP from my one marathon run in 09 I would be running slower than my current easy pace.
I would not expect to be able to run a marathon at my current MP pace.
|
|
Nov 2011
4:49pm, 18 Nov 2011
16 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
I'm with FR on this one. I have no idea what you mean when you say marathon pace - surely this is target MP?
You talked about doing aerobic runs at MP earlier on this thread - I'd have thought this would have been too fast - as running at target MP before you've done all the base work would be anaerobic surely - and if you can't even run 60mins at MP how could you do a marathon at that pace???
So if marathon pace has nothing to do with marathon pace - shouldn't it really be called something else??? Or am I stupid idiot - who should read the thread more thoroughly for starters.
Anyway should just add that after 6 weeks with a focus on longer aerobic runs I ran a 5k today only 7 secs slower than my PB today, with consistent pace, felt good throughout and am slightly smug about it. 
|
|
Nov 2011
5:15pm, 18 Nov 2011
735 posts
|
The Duckinator
MP and pMP (predicted marathon pace) are very often different things - I struggled with the idea when I first heard about it. I'll use an example to explain.
Let's say you ran a 5k in 20:00 exactly. Plug that time into a running calculator (I use McMillan so I'll use the paces from that). That gives a marathon time of 3:15. This, however, is not the time you would run a marathon in, unless you had done enough base work to mean that you suffered from little pace drop-off from HM upwards (one of the key signs of a lack of base work is 'dropping off a cliff' after a certain point - usually between HM & marathons).
What MP is in this situation is a training intensity, which will serve as an upper aerobic workout, which will improve your aerobic threshold. Initially, without a base yes this will be difficult - I struggled with 3M initially, but over time (and with plenty of miles) I'm up to well over 8M now.
The problem with using MP from calculators to say you can run a marathon in X time is that calculators do not take into effect the physiological challenges associated with marathons - carbohydrate depletion, muscular fatigue, dehydration etc - all of which play small roles in shorter races. The reason most people cannot run MP for a marathon is because they're not optimally trained for one - and this isn't a criticism, basically only the quick (and I'm talking sub-2:30 here) can hit MP in a marathon, and even then they need substantial training (100mpw+ generally).
I agree MP isn't the best term for it, but like the industrial revolution it's a term we're stuck with, regardless of how inaccurate it it
|
|
Nov 2011
6:26pm, 18 Nov 2011
11,614 posts
|
Fenland Runner
Really helpful, Duckinator and very well explained.
|
|
Nov 2011
6:38pm, 18 Nov 2011
17 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
If you can only do it for 60mins then it sounds like 10k plus a bit pace to me. And you know what they say duckinator, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck then its a duck.
|
