|
Aug 2017
12:59pm, 16 Aug 2017
27,165 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Wow Brunski, impressive improvement off relatively limited mileage last year. I notice (good ol Fetch stalking!) that you did mostly sub 7 min miles until mile 22 then crept up. Would you say that was down to lack of long runs, total mileage or something else?
Back to AL and general - isn't there something about expectation? If you have "only" run 25 miles per week, max long runs of 15 miles or whatever counts as "only", then wouldn't you expect to have a sub optimal experience at the marathon? Either slower than you wanted, or harder than you wanted it to be or both. Or a total melt down from 20 miles or however that manifests itself? If that is your expectation, then no problem about choosing that type of training and toeing the line on race day.
The only thing I would criticise is acting all confused and upset after that things didn't go better on race day!  G
|
|
Aug 2017
1:18pm, 16 Aug 2017
401 posts
|
Brunski
Cheers HappyG
Yeah I'm not one for following a plan and it was only in the last week I decided to have a go at doing a 3hr marathon, so possibly the sub-3 was a shade ambitious last year. A lot of my runs leading up to York were a bit steadier, and not really preparing me for the feeling of those last 6-8 miles of a marathon.
I think I'm slightly better prepared this year in that I've built a decent winter base following York, raced a couple of tough HMs in the Spring, and I'm now gradually picking up the pace in the week and the length of runs at the weekend (at the expense of my preferred 5ks) 😀
|
|
Aug 2017
1:22pm, 16 Aug 2017
10,999 posts
|
Autumnleaves
Exactly :)G - my concern is that this guy is potentially a very good marathon runner - he has impressive endurance pace - and that his first marathon might end up being very negative and way below what he might have expected on best form. I think he is set on being the first of the main RR group to complete one and there are a couple aiming at one next year. He is also *very* stubborn!
|
|
Aug 2017
1:59pm, 16 Aug 2017
11,618 posts
|
Chrisull
AndrewS - nice summary of points covered, I'd be in total agreement with that.
My reading is that the back to back runs are seemingly another attempt to bring the body into that fatigued state (as one day after a 2 hour run there will still be muscle damage and fatigue present), rather than doing it all at once, which perhaps might involve less risk, for the less experienced runner. I seem to remember the 3.15 thread had a training run of a couple or so miles at target 10k pace then do 12-14 miles afterwards at MP as another way of arriving there too (a particular unpleasant seeming way!)
AL - I think there is some consensus, and yes, what you describe seems good.
Ok - onto the new point, Brunski raises implicitly the genetic differences between us. I know a runner, lady vet, whose first marathon was in the 3.20s, and had no "wall", and was done off limited training. She now does 100 milers and isn't really actually that much faster over marathon distance (3.10). I do notice that the lady runners I know at the club are much better able to hold their distance later in marathon than the men (by and large), and that this isn't always down to a more sensible pacing strategy. Said lady will start at sub 7 minute pace, then after 5 miles settle down to 7.45-8.00 pace, before picking up for last 6 at 7.30-7.45 kind of pace (Paul A will know who I mean ) This kind of strategy would destroy me and probably well before 20 miles. If someone has a strategy that looks completely bonkers on paper, but works for them, I'm not sure I'd intervene. So Brunski, your strategy isn't bonkers by any means, and it could be you turn up, do sub 3 hrs and say "what's the fuss"? And I could follow P&D to the letter and suffer from 23 miles on to 3.20.XX as usual. I think I'm saying, some of us need more time on feet than others...
|
|
Aug 2017
2:08pm, 16 Aug 2017
11,619 posts
|
Chrisull
Also I seem to recall the late Ed Whitlock (wr holder for 75, 80 and 85 at marathon distance) followed a strategy of several medium LSRs a week rather than one huge one?
|
|
Aug 2017
2:25pm, 16 Aug 2017
27,166 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
I never compare one runner's performance with another's. What I compare is one runner's improvement and progress (or regress) with another's. That eliminates innate ability, age, gender.
However, this leaves one other important variable, in my mind, which is experience. I have often said and have read somewhere, though I can't provide a reference, that your marathon best will continue to improve with 5 or more years of consistent, continuous (within reason) training and racing.
So if you've done 2 marathons in 2 years, you've still got loads of room for improvement. If you've been doing this lark for 7 years, 15 marathons, very few breaks for injury and your last half dozen marathons with consistent training, you're going to find that you are close to your best and hence to your limit. Further improvement may be hard to find! (Unless you can make a radical change - e.g. win lottery and have a full time, professional physio, nutrition and coaching team to look after your every athletic whim!)
So, if we talk in improvements, if you want them, they are there (imho) for anyone prepared to build up distance and total training volume. Clearly if you've already built up and done lots, you may struggle to get much better or even get close to your previous best, even if you are now doing lots (me!) G
|
|
Aug 2017
2:31pm, 16 Aug 2017
402 posts
|
Brunski
Chrisull - I think I'd probably benefit from following a plan, but where I squeeze in my miles (mainly commuting to or from work) make it hard to fit to a plan.
Also I run for the enjoyment, and whilst knocking a couple more minutes off my time for target marathon or half would give me joy, I'm still improving by taking a little from here/there/wherever and trying to make it work for me. I read loads on running, and hopefully a bit of it is sinking in!
In general I don't write lists, I have to create plans and report on theses at work, but I don't have to for running, so I generally don't. I guess when the improvements stop I'll try something else, that may well involve committing to a plan. Until then I'll enjoy the ride 😀
AL - your runners stubbornness will help him in the marathon for sure 😂
|
|
Aug 2017
2:58pm, 16 Aug 2017
15,268 posts
|
ChrisHB
My marathon days are far behind me, but I do remember, people used to say that the half-way point of a marathon is 20 miles, and I didn't want to set off on something where I hadn't even done "half" in training; also the leading "2" in 20 and 26.2 is quite significant mentally.
|
|
Aug 2017
3:11pm, 16 Aug 2017
11,620 posts
|
Chrisull
Chris - yes we haven't even started discussing the mental aspects, which are of course huge :-).
|
|
Aug 2017
7:29pm, 16 Aug 2017
2,191 posts
|
Tim of MK
There are those, who also say it is important that long run distance/time is no more than a certain percentage (say 50%) of the relevant week's total training distance/time.
But say that someone only did one session a week and that was a long run. Each week, they'd come to this session both physically rested and mentally hungry to run.
So, they shouldn't have any problem building the long run's distance gradually up to say 18-20 miles.
Given that their body would have 'acclimatised' to its one weekly long run, is there any logical reason why it wouldn't come with another one on race-day?
|
