|
Aug 2017
11:20pm, 20 Aug 2017
8,645 posts
|
Badger
I don't know, but my PB is 4:05 and I often did training runs longer than 3 hours- out to 3.45 or a bit more.
The outcome for me didn't have much to do with the length of the longest run (almost always 20-21 miles), but it did correlate nicely with the length of the 5 longest runs put together. That in turn had a lot to do with being in shape at the start of the training plan to build up to the 5 longest runs adding up to 100 miles.
I used a tool once which isn't available here any more to look at the correlation between time and training volume for people logging on Fetch. Mean training volume for 4.30 was 413 miles, for 3.50 was 514 miles, roughly linear in between. There is quite a lot of scatter, unsurprisingly, but my conclusion from that was to target 500 miles of training to hit 4 hours and avoid blowing up in the last 6 miles, and that worked for me (if you'll excuse me the 5 minutes). The 5 longest runs bit came naturally with the total volume.
This isn't the same as Tim's target, but it was mine.
|
|
Aug 2017
8:56am, 21 Aug 2017
27,204 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Tim, are you serious? That Berlin marathon recommendation for "4-6 hour runners" as Steve says is at best random (4 hours is massively different to 6 hours) and probably is based on not getting sued (don't run for more than 3 hours in training, you might die!)
Badger, ditto, for my 3:0x - 3:1x marathon times I have often run 3:30-4 hours in training. Unless I'm doing a training run targeting a specific pace, then, including breaks, chatting to club mates, walking up a hill etc. I could be out for any amount of time!
I like Steve's summary at end of last page.
And as Badger says, if you want to train for your best time, more volume naturally leads to longer long run too.
But if you aren't bothered about your marathon time, or your strength to enjoy your marathon (like Fenners said), then no, you don't need to train much for it. You won't get your best time and you might have a bit of a painful day and miss out on enjoyment, but that's a choice, I guess.  G
|
|
Aug 2017
10:09am, 21 Aug 2017
7,526 posts
|
simbil
Enjoyment is a very personal thing - I've enjoyed 'racing' (not to win, just to place as well as I can) and I've enjoyed doing challenges (complete rather than compete events) that are beyond what I am properly trained for.
Both have had highs and lows on the day, and most of the time both have lasting good memories and a sense of achievement making them overall positive and enjoyable events.
The key point is to have a realistic expectation - less preparation will mean more ugliness on the day, a longer recovery period and a bigger risk of a DNF/injury.
More preparation might mean missing out on the rest of life and regretting that.
People just have to be aware of and weigh up the many factors and then make a decision that works for their personal circumstances and goals.
|
|
Aug 2017
10:26am, 21 Aug 2017
8,025 posts
|
geordiegirl
One thing I've taken from this thread is that training and 'racing' and how you execute both is personal based on a) your ability b) the level you're at c) expectations for the day d) life.... among others.
So in answer to Larkim, had I had the time and not picked up a niggle a few weeks ago, I most certainly would have gone out for a 5hr run, I'm hoping to be somewhere around 6 for the day...
A 3hr training run on a 4-5hr expected time to me is ridiculous (not saying Berlin marathon advise is wrong, but for me it would be... I need to know that I have a chance of getting to the finish line and how can I do that if my training only gets me half way?
I have been guilty of focusing on runs (setting myself a mileage for the year target) and missing out on my cross training, this has probably led to the niggle I've picked up but with hypermobility I am injury prone anyway and a fight with a tree root didn't help matters.
|
|
Aug 2017
10:46am, 21 Aug 2017
2,569 posts
|
larkim
GG - I can fully understand that mentality (the "how will I know..." perspective) as that's exactly how I felt when I started getting into running. For my first HM I needed to know I could get to 11 miles to give me confidence I could make it to 13. It's easy now I've got miles under the belt to be a bit blase about it and forget that there were times when distances and time on feet felt intimidating, so the mental confidence of a 90% race distance / time run can be very important.
There's of course a separate question about whether it is necessary or not, and I think that's where this thread heads. Physically it seems its unlikely to be necessary to run for 5 hours to train your body for a 6 hour run, but mentally it may well be necessary (at least for a sizeable chunk of people)!
|
|
Aug 2017
12:24pm, 21 Aug 2017
294 posts
|
Little Miss Happy
I think a lot depends on how you run those longer runs, how much they take out of you and how well you recover. If you manage one long run and that's it for the week then I'd say that you're probably better off doing more shorter ones (from a physical rather than a psychological point of view). If you can go out and do four hours and be able to run again if not the next day then the one after then I'd say it's more worthwhile. Don't underestimate the benefits of walking either, when I couldn't run for a few months post accident once I could walk I started doing that and built up to 16 miles (I was unable to work) which meant that when I did get back running I was able to build the mileage quickly.
|
|
Aug 2017
12:36pm, 21 Aug 2017
15,970 posts
|
Wriggling Snake
Racing is racing. If you run as fast as you can for any distance. That is racing. Being in an event or not. You can be in a race and use it as training but as I said a long way back training pace is something like 90s per mile or more slower than your 10k pace.
Another comnon mistake is people racing too often it is very tiring. Marathon training especially so. You need to be very careful in how often you
race leading up to a marathon.
|
|
Aug 2017
1:21pm, 21 Aug 2017
27,212 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
That's a really good shout LMH. People (esp slower people) often scoff at 90-120s slower than target marathon for your long run pace. "I'd be virtually walking". Errr, yeah, that's the point. If your marathon pace is 9:30-10 min / mile (nothing wrong with that, a bliddy tough marathon and same distance as everyone else etc.) then yes, you may be training at 11 or 12 min miles. That is almost walking. That's fine. You can run/walk or as you say, just walk (fast walk, pink cheeks, out of breath, sweaty walk, not amble) , and you will be getting most of the endurance and resilience benefits that you would from your long run.
And simbil, yes, I agree, enjoyment probably isn't best word because it's so subjective. But "aligned expectations" is a bit of a mouthful! If one is undertrained, knows it, is taking part in an event to experience it, see the area, spend time with friends (or even to deliberately have more than necessary pain and suffering!) then it's fine. You have set your expectations and you will reap what you have not adequately sown! G
|
|
Aug 2017
2:33pm, 21 Aug 2017
2,201 posts
|
Tim of MK
I'm actually having a bit of week off, as my longer effort will be a race-pace or better over just half-marathon distance.
|
|
Aug 2017
4:41pm, 21 Aug 2017
295 posts
|
Little Miss Happy
Is that because you have a race Tim?
|
