|
Aug 2010
1:56pm, 6 Aug 2010
8,602 posts
|
macca53
Oh Glenn you don't understand>
It my followers/disciples/clients who need to qualify by following the method. If you don't qualify that's not the system's fault you must be interpreting it in a bad way
|
|
Aug 2010
2:43pm, 6 Aug 2010
4,101 posts
|
Joopsy
There is a great 35 mile track down the River Witham from Boston to Lincoln. I have run it a couple of times.
I don't think you need to qualify for it though.
|
|
Aug 2010
3:06pm, 6 Aug 2010
1,837 posts
|
Vindicator
If the FIRST schedule makes training for marathon look doable for people with busy lives as 3 times per week (I doubt most do the 2 days cross training properly) does not take up as much time as the 5/6 days running some other schedules demand. Surely it is better they actually DO some training.
|
|
Aug 2010
3:12pm, 6 Aug 2010
12,078 posts
|
BigChiefRunningBore
Geesus I can't believe people actually follow training plans. A lack of attention to detail is essential to the recreational runner. Specific training may have adverse effects such as 'getting better at it' and 'speeding up' or even 'not feeling quite so knackered'. It's easy to lose sight of the fact that you have entered races merely to get out of the house and enjoy some peace and quiet. Training for races will sadly make the race itself less fun and less peaceful due to the extra effort involved caused by being slightly faster than last time. After all the shitty medal or plastic cack at the end is the same for everyone. Finally it is best to remember why we run, which was....
|
|
Aug 2010
3:19pm, 6 Aug 2010
12,883 posts
|
Lizzie W
BCRB - ...so we can eat more cake?
|
|
Aug 2010
3:21pm, 6 Aug 2010
1,304 posts
|
lunaman
To be fair, it looks like the issue, the reason for the thread, is some of the marketing hype about this here book, rather than the fairly clear idea that following a plan of any sort rather than no plan, just might see your running times improve.
Doh, I've just realised I do indeed have this book, which was published in 2007 following an article in the US RW I think, so this ain't news. The endorsing letters from readers inside the book don't seem to go beyond the sort of thing you see in my well thumbed copy of P&D, or indeed any running book that doesn't want to publish letters from readers who followed a plan and died as a result. You don't see those sorts of letters often enough!
|
|
Aug 2010
3:23pm, 6 Aug 2010
10,171 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Grep, 2 things
1. It is Furman plan (aka FIRST) and is still a 6/7 day a week training plan, for advanced (rather than first time or novice marathon runners). The days that would be "recovery run" or "4 miles easy" are replaced with swim, bike, gym, core etc.
2. There are some who are advised or forced to reduce running from 6/7 days a week to only 3 or 4. This may be wrong, but it's medical advice (hospital consultant and hospital physio) for some and they want to follow it. Furman gives a way to structure the 30-40 hours a month that one spends into less running, with maximum performance effect, with non-running providing the base for aerobic, strengthening and other physical training benefits.
I know this, cos I'm in camp 2. and on looking for 3/4 run a week programs that still gave maximum running performance benefit found this one.
Thanks for rubbishing it though those who have(that's a winky though, not really! everyone entitled to their opinion etc  ) Happy training all! :-)G
|
|
Aug 2010
3:23pm, 6 Aug 2010
1,305 posts
|
lunaman
I've just baked a fresh banana cake Lizzie, mmmmm!
|
|
Aug 2010
3:24pm, 6 Aug 2010
10,172 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Hi luna *waves* - great minds etc.... :-)G
|
|
Aug 2010
3:57pm, 6 Aug 2010
9 posts
|
EAL
junk miles....
|
