|
Aug 2017
10:32am, 16 Aug 2017
10,993 posts
|
Autumnleaves
I'm interested to hear the idea of doing two back to back days as part of marathon training. I did a few of these during my training for the Tour of Merseyside but for the more obvious reason that the event involved those. I'd be interested to see a plan for a first marathoner based on that type of pattern. Aside from anything else it would appeal to me!
|
|
Aug 2017
10:35am, 16 Aug 2017
2,529 posts
|
larkim
We can't talk about distance, pace or time independently. A combination of any two will just create the third.
The science has to support an optimum (for specific scenarios - which may be individual, or across a class of individuals), and as has previously been said the body can only really be said to understand time (or more properly, duration) and intensity. Those combine to make distance, so if the science can agree that training at a specific intensity for a specific duration is optimum, then whatever distance falls out from that will be "right" in the end.
Time is entirely measureable, intensity could be measured through pace or HR.
The way most marathon plans are worded though, the accommodate everyone by saying run at X intensity for Y distance. It's possible to argue that actually what they are saying is run at X intensity for Z proportion of your expected race time, which might be what the science supports - the best training might be to run at a specific intensity for a specific percentage of the target race time, or it might be a specific intensity for specific length of time.
|
|
Aug 2017
10:39am, 16 Aug 2017
10,994 posts
|
Autumnleaves
So is the consensus on here that training to 'time on feet' rather than getting hung up on the distance you've covered - is potentially more effective for those tackling a marathon for the first time, who want to get round in one piece, having 'run' all the way?
|
|
Aug 2017
10:40am, 16 Aug 2017
23,428 posts
|
Derby Tup
One option I *might* have done in the past is to run an ultra or two before my target marathon 
Interesting debate. tbh I rarely look at training discussions on here but this is fascinating 
|
|
Aug 2017
10:47am, 16 Aug 2017
2,530 posts
|
larkim
@AL - this is a Fetch thread about how to run long runs - there won't be a consensus
Perhaps if there is a consensus it might be that in marathon training you need to do some regular runs which are "quite long" and slower than your target marathon pace at close to the max distance / duration that would otherwise leave you prone to injury or unable to complete other training sessions. If someone is doing a long run which compromises their health or compromises other training sessions, then that is definitely "wrong".
|
|
Aug 2017
11:24am, 16 Aug 2017
398 posts
|
Brunski
Interesting debate. I'm a relatively new marathoner having 'run' 2 marathons (1 ran & the other I ran 18 miles before introducing lengthening walk breaks due to being cream crackered).
I think for completing a marathon the best advice I read was using a traffic light system, where the first 10 miles was green (relatively easy), the second 10 miles was Amber effort (yes this is starting to get harder but I'm in no danger of giving up at this pace), and the third 10 (10k) was creeping up into the red. Basically managing whatever you had left to get over the line. Yes have target paces around that but if at any point you stray from green to Amber too early, or Amber to red, just back off slightly.
The training mileage and efforts you put in around that determine what the Green/Amber/Red zones translate to pace wise.
Personally a lot of my mileage comes from commuting and I stack up a lot of 6-10 mile days this way. I really think the long run benefits someone like me, but I only tend to do them when training for an event - marathon or HM.
Last year I loosely followed the long run mileage from a plan for about 6 weeks before the taper (something like 16/16/18/18/20/22), and I think that, along with a general increase in mileage, helped me go from run/walking my 3:40 marathon in 2015, to running my PB of 3:02 last year.
As a beginner I'd keep all long runs in the green, possibly straying into the Amber zone (can be measured by heart rate too IMO).
|
|
Aug 2017
11:34am, 16 Aug 2017
10,995 posts
|
Autumnleaves
Fair point!
I have another runner who is very keen to do a marathon but due to work can only train over the weekends at the moment - so he packs in a lot of miles, but only Friday to Sunday. He's not awfully communicative at the moment because I think he feels I will tell him to drop the whole idea - but I think he has got his longest runs up to the 18 mile mark. He is unlikely temperamentally to settle for 'getting round', I think he has his sights on around 4 hours (his half PB from last year is 1.43, but this year he has only managed 1.50 due to the training issues) - target race was I think Chester, but officially he has only admitted to me that he wants to do the Metric. He told Mr AL he was actually aiming at the full - in the touching belief that we don't talk to each other as coaches What advice would you give him? Is he foolish to contemplate it?
|
|
Aug 2017
11:38am, 16 Aug 2017
628 posts
|
AndrewS
AL- it is all about time. Physiologically, your body will weaken over a specific period of time. The amount of time that takes depends on how you have conditioned your body to cope with time on your feet.
That is why plans should be adapted according to the amount of time that you are going to spend on your feet come race day. As mentioned above, the plans don't really account for differences in pace (getting round v having a target time). We have to do the calculations ourselves.
If you know that you are likely to take 5 hours to run the race, then you should be aiming to increase your run time slowly so that you can condition yourself to maintain form and to operate anaerobically over a much longer period of time.
That doesn't mean that you should be able to do a 5 hour training run before your race, but you should be doing several runs over long periods of time so that you can bring your body to that stage of fatigue and hence make the appropriate adaptations in your anaerobic pathways.
Fatigue is not linear, you plateau for a long time before your finally stop. This plateau is a state of anerobic compensation and can be sustained for quite a while; this is where you should aim to reach in that long run. But not for too long, just long enough to improve that system.
Forget distance, think time, think adaptation, choose life.
|
|
Aug 2017
11:47am, 16 Aug 2017
399 posts
|
Brunski
@AL - I'd expect that your runner has a decent chance of running 4hrs. He's ran 1:50 half this year, has a 1:43 PB and he's upto 18 miles for his long run.
I've not got past 16/17 miles yet, and I'm running York in less than 8 weeks.
My 3:40 (with some walking) in 2015 came from a spring HM PB of 1:38, albeit on a hilly course.
|
|
Aug 2017
11:55am, 16 Aug 2017
10,998 posts
|
Autumnleaves
Thanks Brunski - in which case I think I will remain in official ignorance and let him make his own decision about whether or not he runs the full distance! My concern was that he might overdo it on race day - I know he is frustrated that he has lost fitness this year so he tends to work very, very hard when he does get out!
|
